paizo.com Recent Posts by crmanriqpaizo.com Recent Posts by crmanriq2014-09-08T11:41:50Z2014-09-08T11:41:50ZRe: Pathfinder Society®: General Discussion: Character Creation: What do you wish you knew?Fozzy Hammer (alias of crmanriq)http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2levz&page=2?Character-Creation-What-do-you-wish-you-knew#752011-09-12T20:19:51Z2011-09-12T20:19:51Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">Auke Teeninga wrote:</div><blockquote> <div class="messageboard-quotee">Fozzy Hammer wrote:</div><blockquote>Tool, Masterwork</blockquote><p>Very debatable... (and in Organized Play it's best to stay away from debates.).
<p>But you can always buy a 200 gp ioun stone for a +1! </blockquote><p>I've yet to have a single GM challenge my use of masterwork tools, once the relevant text is pointed out to him/her.
<p>And yes, I'll generally buy an Ioun stone too, for skills that I care about most. (Different bonus types, so they do stack.)</p>Auke Teeninga wrote:Fozzy Hammer wrote:Tool, Masterwork
Very debatable... (and in Organized Play it's best to stay away from debates.). But you can always buy a 200 gp ioun stone for a +1! I've yet to have a single GM challenge my use of masterwork tools, once the relevant text is pointed out to him/her. And yes, I'll generally buy an Ioun stone too, for skills that I care about most. (Different bonus types, so they do stack.)Fozzy Hammer (alias of crmanriq)2011-09-12T20:19:51ZRe: Pathfinder Society®: General Discussion: Masterwork Transformation legal for PFS play?Fozzy Hammer (alias of crmanriq)http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2mtiz&page=2?Masterwork-Transformation-legal-for-PFS-play#712011-09-12T20:30:19Z2011-09-12T20:17:04Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">Caedwyr wrote:</div><blockquote> <div class="messageboard-quotee">Fozzy Hammer wrote:</div><blockquote> But no. I won't do that to my players. So I, along with every other PFS GM will simply ignore the rule as written and write in lots of band-aid text. </blockquote><p>Actually, I think you might be looking at this from the wrong perspective. What seems to be advocated, is there's a whole bunch of rules/guidelines that may not work, but are "fairly obvious how they should work". Paizo employees have said in this thread and others, that you should go with the "fairly obvious way it should work". This means you have huge leeway in how you want pretty much every mechanic to work, so long as you can make an argument that the way you want a mechanic to work is "fairly obvious", since we've been told a number of times to not be slaves to the RAW when it is clear what was intended.
<p>The fact that what is clear to one group may not necessarily what will be clear to another group does not appear to be an issue. </blockquote><p>Ya. That would work fine in a home campaign, where a good GM can do wonders to make up for poor design and crappy writing and failed attempts at editing.
<p>But in an organized play setting, players have a right to expect that rules will be applied uniformly from table to table, and GM to GM. So what might be obvious to one GM is by no means obvious to another. For example, while Chris Mortika and I are in apparent agreement in this thread, we are very nearly polar opposite in how we view evil or borderline evil or non-good acts by PC's. We had a whole thread end without a single bit of Paizo input other than to close the thread down when the argument gained some heat. So no, it's not at all fairly obvious how that was supposed to go. In fact, given the dearth of Paizo input on this thread, it's not at all obvious how this is supposed to be ruled.</p>
<p>What may be obvious to you, may not be obvious to all, or even anyone else. Saying "It's obvious" is simply a shortcut way of saying "I can't be bothered to make myself clear. Everyone guess what I'm thinking!!!" (There's a Dilbert cartoon in there somewhere, with the Pointed Haired Menace shouting "It's Obvious!!!")</p>Caedwyr wrote:Fozzy Hammer wrote: But no. I won't do that to my players. So I, along with every other PFS GM will simply ignore the rule as written and write in lots of band-aid text.
Actually, I think you might be looking at this from the wrong perspective. What seems to be advocated, is there's a whole bunch of rules/guidelines that may not work, but are "fairly obvious how they should work". Paizo employees have said in this thread and others, that you should go with the "fairly obvious...Fozzy Hammer (alias of crmanriq)2011-09-12T20:17:04ZRe: Pathfinder Society®: General Discussion: Masterwork Transformation legal for PFS play?Fozzy Hammer (alias of crmanriq)http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2mtiz&page=2?Masterwork-Transformation-legal-for-PFS-play#662011-09-12T20:30:36Z2011-09-12T19:42:14Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">Michael Griffin-Wade wrote:</div><blockquote> So what your asking Fozzy is to recreate the RPG book. Come on now guys you'r just being condescending now. </blockquote><p>No. That is not what I am asking as well. I am trying to give you the benefit of the doubt here that you are not being deliberately obtuse.
<p>The CORE RULES are quite clear on how spells behave.</p>
<p>The PFS house rules (ie, the Guide4.0) modify how every permanent and instantaneous spell works. Every one of them.</p>
<div class="messageboard-quotee">"GUIDE4.0 wrote:</div><blockquote><p><b>Any spell cast by a PC during the course of a scenario
</p>
that is still active at the end of a scenario ends when the
<br />
scenario does.</b> For example, if your cleric PC casts bless on
<br />
the party and bless is still active when the scenario ends,
<br />
the bless spell ends at the conclusion of the scenario. <b>This
<br />
includes spells with an instantaneous or permanent
<br />
duration, such as continual flame, create undead or fabricate.</b></blockquote><p>This rule. In GUIDE4.0 modifies Animate Dead (Instantaneous Duration). It modifies Continual Flame (Permanent). It also modifies Cure Light Wounds (Instantaneous Duration).
<p>This means, that according to the campaign rules (not the core rules), cure light wounds ends at the end of a module. </p>
<p>Yes, I know that it is not getting applied that way. But this is because GM's are ignoring this rule when it comes to CLW, but they are not ignoring this rule when it comes to Animate Dead.</p>
<p>It is only through ignorance of this campaign house rule that huge numbers of characters don't suddenly drop dead at the end of each module. </p>
<p>The campaign house rule is poorly written. </p>
<p>Maybe I should start enforcing the rule, as written in games that I run. Maybe a few complaints to a VC about dead characters at the end of the module might convince you that the rule needs rewriting? </p>
<p>But no. I won't do that to my players. So I, along with every other PFS GM will simply ignore the rule as written and write in lots of band-aid text.</p>Michael Griffin-Wade wrote:So what your asking Fozzy is to recreate the RPG book. Come on now guys you'r just being condescending now.
No. That is not what I am asking as well. I am trying to give you the benefit of the doubt here that you are not being deliberately obtuse. The CORE RULES are quite clear on how spells behave.
The PFS house rules (ie, the Guide4.0) modify how every permanent and instantaneous spell works. Every one of them.
"GUIDE4.0 wrote:Any spell cast by a PC during the...Fozzy Hammer (alias of crmanriq)2011-09-12T19:42:14ZRe: Pathfinder Society®: General Discussion: Masterwork Transformation legal for PFS play?Fozzy Hammer (alias of crmanriq)http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2mtiz&page=2?Masterwork-Transformation-legal-for-PFS-play#562011-09-12T19:52:28Z2011-09-12T18:16:28Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">Michael Griffin-Wade wrote:</div><blockquote><p> I'm going to have to refer you to the rules forums for this if you don't understand how healing works Chris.</p>
<p>And you are also putting words in my mouth. I said that None of the NPCs cast prohibited spells in scenarios. Cure spells aren"t prohibited.</p>
<p>And I also know that you understand that. I can understand that prople want Masterwork Transformation made legal. I can respect that.</p>
<p>And I know that I'm going to get blaster for this, but come on Chris, you know Pathfinder rules better than this. It's not like Cure spells have had a lot of changes since 3.0.</p>
<p>Sorry that might sound condescending, but there has to be a better way of making a persuasive argument than misinterpreting the main rule set. </blockquote><p>I don't believe that Chris is misrepresenting the main rule set. He is making an accurate representation of the HOUSE RULES that Pathfinder Society uses. The House Rules are inconsistent, and inconsistently applied.
<p>It would be my hope that by pointing out these inconsistencies, future revisions of the rules might be better written, and the game itself would improve.</p>
<p>Personally, I don't care whether MT is made legal or not. The fact that it isn't makes any argument about it moot. The tangential argument, that the house rule proclaiming that instant effect are reversed at end-of-scenario is far more important to me, as it's a gaping hole in the rule set that should be corrected in future revisions of the rules.</p>Michael Griffin-Wade wrote:I'm going to have to refer you to the rules forums for this if you don't understand how healing works Chris.
And you are also putting words in my mouth. I said that None of the NPCs cast prohibited spells in scenarios. Cure spells aren"t prohibited.
And I also know that you understand that. I can understand that prople want Masterwork Transformation made legal. I can respect that.
And I know that I'm going to get blaster for this, but come on Chris, you know...Fozzy Hammer (alias of crmanriq)2011-09-12T18:16:28ZRe: Pathfinder Society®: General Discussion: Masterwork Transformation legal for PFS play?Fozzy Hammer (alias of crmanriq)http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2mtiz&page=2?Masterwork-Transformation-legal-for-PFS-play#522011-09-12T15:04:39Z2011-09-12T15:04:39Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">Chris Mortika wrote:</div><blockquote><p> I'm sorry, Michael; I don't understand.</p>
<p>The PFS OP rules explain that &mdash;as a special frule of organized play &mdash;the duration of spells cast by Player Characters always end between scenarios. </p>
<div class="messageboard-quotee">Quote:</div><blockquote>Any spell cast by a PC during the course of a scenario that is still active at the end of a scenario ends when the scenario does. ... This includes spells with an instantaneous or permanent duration, such as <i>continual flame</i>, <i>create undead</i> or <i>fabricate</i>.</blockquote><p>1) Already, there's a problem, because when we talk about instantaeneous spells like <i>fireball</i> and <i>animate dead</i>, the spell has already ended. So there's a gentlemen's understanding that this includes spell effects, not just spells. So not only is it the case that permanent spells like <i>continual flames</i> peter out, but the effects of instantaneous spells also end. That's not how the guide reads, but that's the interpretation we use.
<p>2a) But not <b>all</b> spells with instantaneous durations. <i>Cure serous wounds</i> has an immediate duration, but we don't imagine that characters sudenly re-take damage. <i>Make whole</i> has an immediate duration, but we don't presume that your restored weapon is broken at the beginning of the next adventure. <i>Raise dead</i>. Etc.</p>
<p>2b) A few people have claimed that the actual, intended meaning here is that the effects of spells that PCs cast, that have a permanent or instantaneous duration, end, <b>unless they remove a condition</b>. So <i>remove disease</i> removes a condition, so it's permanent, but the effects of <i>contagion</i> would go away at the end of the scenario, because it doesn't remove a condition. <i>Make whole</i> removes the "broken" condition, so it's permanent, but <i>masterwork transformation</i> doesn't remove a condition, so its effects would fade away at the completion of a scenario.</p>
<p>2c) But cure spells don't remove a condition, so we need another exception: <b>...or unless they heal damage</b>. Spels like <i>stone to flesh</i> don't remove a... </blockquote><p>Leaving your quote intact (not trimming)...
<p>There's another case here that hasn't been mentioned in the thread yet. </p>
<p>4) Non-spell effects also seem to end at end of scenario. Specific example, the feat: Command Undead. I've yet to see a DM that will allow the commanded undead to remain under the necromancers control past the end of the scenario, even though there is no spell, or spell-like ability in effect. (Channel Energy is a (Su) Supernatural ability).</p>
<p>I will add a slight correction before someone else points out - that Stone to Flesh could be said to remove the <i><b>Petrified</b></i> condition.</p>Chris Mortika wrote:I'm sorry, Michael; I don't understand.
The PFS OP rules explain that --as a special frule of organized play --the duration of spells cast by Player Characters always end between scenarios.
Quote:Any spell cast by a PC during the course of a scenario that is still active at the end of a scenario ends when the scenario does. ... This includes spells with an instantaneous or permanent duration, such as continual flame, create undead or fabricate.
1) Already, there's a...Fozzy Hammer (alias of crmanriq)2011-09-12T15:04:39ZRe: Pathfinder Society®: General Discussion: Masterwork Transformation legal for PFS play?Fozzy Hammer (alias of crmanriq)http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2mtiz?Masterwork-Transformation-legal-for-PFS-play#382011-09-12T01:09:09Z2011-09-12T01:09:09Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">Michael Griffin-Wade wrote:</div><blockquote> <div class="messageboard-quotee">Callarek wrote:</div><blockquote> <div class="messageboard-quotee">Michael Griffin-Wade wrote:</div><blockquote>Stone to flesh changes a condition permanently, once that happens it doesn't revert back at the end of a scenario. </blockquote><p>So, according to the normal PF rules, does <i>Masterwork Transformation</i>.
<p>It has a duration of instantaneous. It changes something into something else, just like <i>Stone to Flesh</i> does.</p>
<p>So, masterwork and non-masterwork are not conditions. Is dead a condition? </blockquote><p>Yes Dead is a condition.
<div class="messageboard-quotee">Dead wrote:</div><blockquote></p>
<p>The character's hit points are reduced to a negative amount equal to his Constitution score, his Constitution drops to 0, or he is killed outright by a spell or effect. The character's soul leaves his body. Dead characters cannot benefit from normal or magical healing, but they can be restored to life via magic. A dead body decays normally unless magically preserved, but magic that restores a dead character to life also restores the body either to full health or to its condition at the time of death (depending on the spell or device). Either way, resurrected characters need not worry about rigor mortis, decomposition, and other conditions that affect dead bodies.</blockquote>A complete list of conditions you can find it at <a href="http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/glossary.html#conditions" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/glossary.html#conditions</a> </blockquote><p>"Wounded" is not a condition.Michael Griffin-Wade wrote:Callarek wrote: Michael Griffin-Wade wrote:Stone to flesh changes a condition permanently, once that happens it doesn't revert back at the end of a scenario.
So, according to the normal PF rules, does Masterwork Transformation. It has a duration of instantaneous. It changes something into something else, just like Stone to Flesh does.
So, masterwork and non-masterwork are not conditions. Is dead a condition? Yes Dead is a condition. Dead wrote:The character's hit...Fozzy Hammer (alias of crmanriq)2011-09-12T01:09:09ZRe: Pathfinder Society®: General Discussion: Character Creation: What do you wish you knew?Fozzy Hammer (alias of crmanriq)http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2levz&page=2?Character-Creation-What-do-you-wish-you-knew#702011-09-11T16:03:54Z2011-09-11T16:03:54Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">bdk86 wrote:</div><blockquote><br />
<br />
<p>If you're willing to invest the 3300 GP, yes, this works out better. My general argument was against stating that characters above 12 CHA SHOULD take Dangerously Curious &amp; devote ranks to UMD. Now, a high (primary attribute) Charisma, items/feats...the math absolutely works out better.</p>
<p>I do agree that it's awfully helpful out of combat with wands, but I stand by my statement that implying it's a necessity isn't really appropriate stands. The same incident described above involving reviving a witch can be achieved by keeping 1-3 Cure Light Wounds potions on hand. </blockquote><p>Even if you don't want to invest 3300gp, and you don't want to invest in the trait, just taking 1 single rank in UMD can pay off for those rare scenarios where you have no caster in the party, as long as you have a non-negative charisma modifier.)
<p>"Cleric's down! I could use some healing here!"
<br />
"Well, I have a wand of Infernal Healing. Any casters in our party?"
<br />
|crickets|
<br />
|crickets|
<br />
"Well, I have a single rank in UMD. I'll give it a try."
<br />
|roll|
<br />
|roll|
<br />
|roll|
<br />
"Hey! look. It activated. Looks like the cleric will be conscious in a minute or so."</p>bdk86 wrote:If you're willing to invest the 3300 GP, yes, this works out better. My general argument was against stating that characters above 12 CHA SHOULD take Dangerously Curious & devote ranks to UMD. Now, a high (primary attribute) Charisma, items/feats...the math absolutely works out better.
I do agree that it's awfully helpful out of combat with wands, but I stand by my statement that implying it's a necessity isn't really appropriate stands. The same incident described above...Fozzy Hammer (alias of crmanriq)2011-09-11T16:03:54ZRe: Pathfinder Society®: General Discussion: Character Creation: What do you wish you knew?Fozzy Hammer (alias of crmanriq)http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2levz&page=2?Character-Creation-What-do-you-wish-you-knew#692011-09-11T15:57:16Z2011-09-11T15:57:16Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">Timothy McNeil wrote:</div><blockquote> <div class="messageboard-quotee">Jason S wrote:</div><blockquote><p> What's the name of the masterwork item that gives you +2 to UMD? And which book is it in?</p>
<p></blockquote><p>From the Core Rulebook:
<p>Tool, Masterwork: This well-made item is the perfect
<br />
tool for the job. It grants a +2 circumstance bonus on a
<br />
related skill check (if any). Bonuses provided by multiple
<br />
masterwork items do not stack.</p>
<p>Whether or not one can buy a MW Tool for any skill is worth some debate, but many players feel that the 50 gp for +2 is applicable to all skills not otherwise detailed.
<br />
</blockquote><p>Yep, what you said.
<p>I usually describe it as bits of ornate finery that make my clothes look like I haven't been standing in manure all day. </p>
<p>Or "a simple, yet elegant scepter that gives the impression of minor nobility, or at least mid-high birth, without actually carrying any identifying marks."</p>
<p>Or sometimes just a "decorative brooch showing an aspect of Shelyn", as she is the one god welcomed by all of the other gods.</p>Timothy McNeil wrote:Jason S wrote:What's the name of the masterwork item that gives you +2 to UMD? And which book is it in?
From the Core Rulebook: Tool, Masterwork: This well-made item is the perfect
tool for the job. It grants a +2 circumstance bonus on a
related skill check (if any). Bonuses provided by multiple
masterwork items do not stack.
Whether or not one can buy a MW Tool for any skill is worth some debate, but many players feel that the 50 gp for +2 is applicable to all skills...Fozzy Hammer (alias of crmanriq)2011-09-11T15:57:16ZRe: Pathfinder Society®: General Discussion: Character Creation: What do you wish you knew?Fozzy Hammer (alias of crmanriq)http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2levz&page=2?Character-Creation-What-do-you-wish-you-knew#602011-09-10T22:22:35Z2011-09-10T22:22:35Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">sieylianna wrote:</div><blockquote> <div class="messageboard-quotee">bdk86 wrote:</div><blockquote>I'm sorry, but...why? While it is very useful to be able to access scrolls/wands/other spell-activation items outside of your class' spell list (or even better, if you don't get spell casting at all) the skills DCs make it rather unreliable until later levels unless Charisma is one of your primary attributes. </blockquote><p>As another poster mentioned, it is for wands for out of combat healing. At level 1, with Charisma 12, 1 rank in UMD and the Dangerously Curious trait, you have a 6 in 20 chance of activating a wand. You have a 1 in 20 chance of not being able to activate that wand until the next day.
<p>Being able to heal up between combats is a lifesaver, when you may not have a cleric/oracle or other healer type at your table. </blockquote><p>Actually works out slightly better.
<p>Cha 12, Dangerously Curious trait, 1 Rank in UMD, 50gp MW Tool for UMD</p>
<p>+1 Charisma
<br />
+1 Rank
<br />
+3 Class Skill
<br />
+2 Tool
<br />
=====
<br />
+7 to UMD </p>
<p>Even if you never take another rank, a 13 on the die (40% chance) activates the wand. Cost - 1 trait, 1 rank, 50gp</p>
<p>For a slightly higher investment:</p>
<p>3000gp Circlet of Persuasion (+3 to all charisma based checks, which in itself is durn useful in PFS)</p>
<p>1 Rank per level</p>
<p>At 6th level:</p>
<p>+1 Charisma
<br />
+6 Ranks
<br />
+3 Class Skill
<br />
+2 Tool
<br />
+3 Circlet
<br />
=====
<br />
+15 to UMD</p>
<p>A 5 on the die (80% chance) activates the wands, and you can't fail by 10 or more so no chance for a mishap. (A 1 still hoses you for the day, so carry a second wand of CLW or Infernal Healing).</p>sieylianna wrote:bdk86 wrote:I'm sorry, but...why? While it is very useful to be able to access scrolls/wands/other spell-activation items outside of your class' spell list (or even better, if you don't get spell casting at all) the skills DCs make it rather unreliable until later levels unless Charisma is one of your primary attributes.
As another poster mentioned, it is for wands for out of combat healing. At level 1, with Charisma 12, 1 rank in UMD and the Dangerously Curious trait, you...Fozzy Hammer (alias of crmanriq)2011-09-10T22:22:35ZRe: Pathfinder Society®: General Discussion: Antagonize in PFSFozzy Hammer (alias of crmanriq)http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2mof1?Antagonize-in-PFS#292011-09-08T21:33:54Z2011-09-08T21:33:54Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">Mike Schneider wrote:</div><blockquote><p> [I understand that bards and "charisma rogues" need something to do other than cower in the corner during "boss fights", and that Ultimate Combat was going to throw them some bones, but limitationless "You! -2 attack, Nyah-nyah!" is a hefty power upgrade off of a single feat.
</p>
</blockquote><p>Speaking as a player of bards, I will take umbrage at that remark!
<p>I have not, and will not use Antagonize, as I think it's a really poorly written and unbalanced feat.</p>
<p>I will state that every boss fight I've found myself in, I've found ways to actually turn the tide of the battle.</p>
<p>"Everyone gets +2 to hit and damage!"
<br />
"I intimidate the boss - Oh, look, he's shaken for 2 rounds."
<br />
"I vanish, and then waltz up and heal the fighter"
<br />
"I glitterdust the boss!"
<br />
"I charm monster the boss! Make a DC22 Will save!"
<br />
"I grease the square under the bosses feet!"
<br />
"Boss, is unshaken? Intimidate to demoralize again!!! How many rounds does a 35 get me?"
<br />
"I silence the spellcaster!, and switch my bardic performance to Interpretive Dance!"</p>Mike Schneider wrote:[I understand that bards and "charisma rogues" need something to do other than cower in the corner during "boss fights", and that Ultimate Combat was going to throw them some bones, but limitationless "You! -2 attack, Nyah-nyah!" is a hefty power upgrade off of a single feat.
Speaking as a player of bards, I will take umbrage at that remark! I have not, and will not use Antagonize, as I think it's a really poorly written and unbalanced feat.
I will state that every boss...Fozzy Hammer (alias of crmanriq)2011-09-08T21:33:54ZRe: Pathfinder Society®: General Discussion: Table size dilemmaFozzy Hammer (alias of crmanriq)http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2mtm4?Table-size-dilemma#52011-09-08T12:54:01Z2011-09-08T12:54:01Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">Harles wrote:</div><blockquote><p> After our first session, we are nearing the cusp of maximum table size. We haven't started promoting it at the FLGS beyond our weekly D&amp;D Encounters group. If we do, I think we will have too many players. No one else will run Pathfinder in our group. I'm afraid that the Society adventures (and the rules behind Organized Play) are a little intimidating to new GMs (particularly a guy who just shows up to play.) Then there are the supplies, printing adventures, etc.</p>
<p>Can you think of a way around this? </blockquote><p>In the past, we've come up with a policy that encourages GMing. It goes something like this:
<p>If the table has too many players, seating preference will be given in the following order:</p>
<p>1) If you have GM'd a PFS game here in the last 2 months, you get seated first. This encourages you to GM a game, because it will buy you a seat at a full table.</p>
<p>2) If you are a new player, you get seated next. This encourages new players to help the Society grow.</p>
<p>3) If you've sat out a game to make room for other players in the last month, you get seated next. This acknowledges that you've sat out in the past, and that others need to take their turns sitting out.</p>
<p>4) Any remaining seats will be filled in the order you signed up for this game. This encourages you to sign up for games early, so that we can plan on having enough GM's on hand.</p>Harles wrote:After our first session, we are nearing the cusp of maximum table size. We haven't started promoting it at the FLGS beyond our weekly D&D Encounters group. If we do, I think we will have too many players. No one else will run Pathfinder in our group. I'm afraid that the Society adventures (and the rules behind Organized Play) are a little intimidating to new GMs (particularly a guy who just shows up to play.) Then there are the supplies, printing adventures, etc.
Can you think...Fozzy Hammer (alias of crmanriq)2011-09-08T12:54:01ZRe: Pathfinder Society®: General Discussion: How to interpret the no PvP RuleFozzy Hammer (alias of crmanriq)http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2mtcg?How-to-interpret-the-no-PvP-Rule#132011-09-07T04:58:05Z2011-09-07T04:58:05Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">K Neil Shackleton wrote:</div><blockquote><br />
<br />
<p>It's uncommon, but I've dealt with it. Actually, the most common form of PVP I've seen is deliberately trying to hose another player's Faction Mission. </blockquote><p>I've seen a little bit of this. I've also seen the player accidentally hose another's faction mission, and the unfortunate player either believes it was intentional, or believes that this gives them leave to respond in kind.
<p>Which is why I'm more a fan of "Hey guys, my faction leader wants me to try to find a book of magic curses. He also said that I shouldn't let you see me find the book. At some point, if I ask you all to turn your heads, I'd appreciate it. If you need anything similar accomplished, just let me know. I'm a good negotiator, and I speak a host of languages. Remember, we're Pathfinders first. Remember - Explore!Report!Cooperate."</p>
<div class="messageboard-quotee">Guide4.0 wrote:</div><blockquote><p>Pathfinder agents are expected to respect one another’s
</p>
claims and stay out of each other’s affairs unless offering
<br />
a helping hand.</blockquote><p>K Neil Shackleton wrote:It's uncommon, but I've dealt with it. Actually, the most common form of PVP I've seen is deliberately trying to hose another player's Faction Mission.
I've seen a little bit of this. I've also seen the player accidentally hose another's faction mission, and the unfortunate player either believes it was intentional, or believes that this gives them leave to respond in kind. Which is why I'm more a fan of "Hey guys, my faction leader wants me to try to find a book of...Fozzy Hammer (alias of crmanriq)2011-09-07T04:58:05ZRe: Pathfinder Society®: General Discussion: How to check a player's historyFozzy Hammer (alias of crmanriq)http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2mt0l?How-to-check-a-players-history#442011-09-07T04:25:26Z2011-09-07T04:25:26Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">Bob Jonquet wrote:</div><blockquote><br />
<br />
<p>And it is as Neil said, "frowned upon" to have multiple Paizo accounts. There are a number of reasons, but the one most applicable to the forums is the "sock puppet" concept that is bad form and grounds for removal. </blockquote><p>Yet another unwritten rule? I've been unable to find any mention of such.
<p>No, I'm not a sockpuppet. Either what I write resonates, or it does not. I try very hard to support my opinions with actual rules text, and where rules text does not exist, to point out that my opinion is merely my opinion. </p>
<p>All that said, I will reiterate that rules that are not written are not rules. They might be considered etiquette or custom, if a consensus agrees that they are such, but not rules.</p>Bob Jonquet wrote:And it is as Neil said, "frowned upon" to have multiple Paizo accounts. There are a number of reasons, but the one most applicable to the forums is the "sock puppet" concept that is bad form and grounds for removal.
Yet another unwritten rule? I've been unable to find any mention of such. No, I'm not a sockpuppet. Either what I write resonates, or it does not. I try very hard to support my opinions with actual rules text, and where rules text does not exist, to point out...Fozzy Hammer (alias of crmanriq)2011-09-07T04:25:26ZRe: Pathfinder Society®: General Discussion: Permanency for spells not in core bookSmurfy Hammer (alias of crmanriq)http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2mt7z?Permanency-for-spells-not-in-core-book#292011-09-06T18:31:11Z2011-09-06T18:08:41Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">Chris Mortika wrote:</div><blockquote> <div class="messageboard-quotee">Fozzy Hammer wrote:</div><blockquote><br />
<br />
There is no portion of the guide that allows a GM to remove a character from PFS organized play, yet you assert that there is.</blockquote><p>Nope, never claimed that ws in the Guide. That's a post from Mark, instructing GMs how to interpret the Guide.
<div class="messageboard-quotee">Fozzy wrote:</div><blockquote>There is no portion of the guide that allows a GM to change a character's alignment, against the wishes of the player, you you state that you have done such.</blockquote><p>Nope. The core rulebook is the source that allows a GM to change a player character's alignment. As for having done so in PFS, I've never made that claim. Ever.
<div class="messageboard-quotee">Fozzy wrote:</div><blockquote>There is no portion of the guide that asserts that the completion of any faction mission is an "evil act", or that "evil acts" are in any way, shape or form prohibited in organized play. You you assert that such are.</blockquote><p>Nope. That's from Josh Frost.
<p>Seriously, dude. You're being snarky. Request for an apology. </blockquote><p>A rules conversation with someone who ignores the rules is by its nature a waste of time, so I will stop wasting my time in this conversation with you. Should you actually wish to discuss rules, and not random blog posts, I'll be glad to re-engage with you.
<p>Stop looking for an apology when you are in the wrong, and I suspect you will be much smurfier.</p>Chris Mortika wrote:Fozzy Hammer wrote:
There is no portion of the guide that allows a GM to remove a character from PFS organized play, yet you assert that there is.
Nope, never claimed that ws in the Guide. That's a post from Mark, instructing GMs how to interpret the Guide. Fozzy wrote:There is no portion of the guide that allows a GM to change a character's alignment, against the wishes of the player, you you state that you have done such.
Nope. The core rulebook is the source that...Smurfy Hammer (alias of crmanriq)2011-09-06T18:08:41ZRe: Pathfinder Society®: General Discussion: Permanency for spells not in core bookFozzy Hammer (alias of crmanriq)http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2mt7z?Permanency-for-spells-not-in-core-book#272011-09-06T18:37:48Z2011-09-06T17:51:05Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">Chris Mortika wrote:</div><blockquote> <div class="messageboard-quotee">Snarky Hammer wrote:</div><blockquote>If I were snarky, I might point out that Organized play is probably not a suitable environment for someone who thinks they can make up rules about whether or not faction missions make a PC unplayable.</blockquote><p>Fozzy, I don't know what "If I were snarky, I might" does as a rhetorical device. I have repeatedly explained that I follow the guide to the best of my understanding, and I take offense at your claim that I am making up rules.
<p>I request an apology. </blockquote><p>There is no portion of the guide that allows a GM to remove a character from PFS organized play, yet you assert that there is.
<p>There is no portion of the guide that allows a GM to change a character's alignment, against the wishes of the player, you you state that you have done such.</p>
<p>There is no portion of the guide that asserts that the completion of any faction mission is an "evil act", or that "evil acts" are in any way, shape or form prohibited in organized play. You you assert that such are.</p>
<p>Yes you are making up rules.</p>
<p>No. <b>For these reasons, your request for an apology is denied.</b></p>Chris Mortika wrote:Snarky Hammer wrote:If I were snarky, I might point out that Organized play is probably not a suitable environment for someone who thinks they can make up rules about whether or not faction missions make a PC unplayable.
Fozzy, I don't know what "If I were snarky, I might" does as a rhetorical device. I have repeatedly explained that I follow the guide to the best of my understanding, and I take offense at your claim that I am making up rules. I request an apology. There...Fozzy Hammer (alias of crmanriq)2011-09-06T17:51:05ZRe: Pathfinder Society®: General Discussion: Permanency for spells not in core bookSnarky Hammer (alias of crmanriq)http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2mt7z?Permanency-for-spells-not-in-core-book#252011-09-06T18:31:18Z2011-09-06T16:47:08Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">Chris Mortika wrote:</div><blockquote> <div class="messageboard-quotee">Fozzy Hammer wrote:</div><blockquote>It's not pedantic to want the rules to mean what the rules say, instead of what some people think that they might be trying to say. Either the rules matter, or we can all just simply play whatever game pleases us at the time, and I can start writing awesome boons into character sheets.</blockquote><p>Fozzy,
<p>I don't want to sound negative here, but there's never going to be an organized play environment where the rules-as-written are 100% accurate, complete, and exhaustive.</p>
<p>You claim here is that the situation allows you to ignore any rules as you please, write made-up boons that other GMs would have to abide by, and generally act like a jerk.</p>
<p>Organized play is probably not a suitable environment for someone who requires the rules be perfect. </blockquote><p>If I were snarky, I might point out that Organized play is probably not a suitable environment for someone who thinks they can make up rules about whether or not faction missions make a PC unplayable.
<p>Hmm.</p>
<p>Rules are. Or they aren't. If a rule isn't applicable as written, then it's a poorly written rule. Pointing out poorly written rules should be welcomed, rather than sniffed at, as you appear to be doing.</p>
<p>A prossible reason that the rule is poorly written is that any reasoning behind it is sketchy at best ("we don't want PC's to be able to create effects that last beyond the scenario" "Really, what about healing?" "uh, except healing" "restoration?", "uh, that too." "raise dead?" "Oh, bringing someone back from dead is fine." "What about animate dead?"), and without a good way to differentiate between goodspell and badspell, we're left with badrule.</p>Chris Mortika wrote:Fozzy Hammer wrote:It's not pedantic to want the rules to mean what the rules say, instead of what some people think that they might be trying to say. Either the rules matter, or we can all just simply play whatever game pleases us at the time, and I can start writing awesome boons into character sheets.
Fozzy, I don't want to sound negative here, but there's never going to be an organized play environment where the rules-as-written are 100% accurate, complete, and...Snarky Hammer (alias of crmanriq)2011-09-06T16:47:08ZRe: Pathfinder Society®: General Discussion: Permanency for spells not in core bookFozzy Hammer (alias of crmanriq)http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2mt7z?Permanency-for-spells-not-in-core-book#222011-09-06T17:00:25Z2011-09-06T16:34:32Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">Andrew Christian wrote:</div><blockquote> <div class="messageboard-quotee">Fozzy Hammer wrote:</div><blockquote> (Though I've never seen an actual logical explanation of why Cure Light Wounds, Remove Disease, Raise Dead, and Restoration don't also end at end of scenario.) </blockquote><p>Because those spells are not permanent effects. They are instantaneous effects. Yes the healing is permanent, but the actual spell effect is not. It instantaneously causes the healing to occur.
<p>Just like the damage from a fireball is permanent because the spell is instantaneous.</p>
<p>Lets not get pedantic with are arguing over rules minutia and why certain rules and/or spells are not allowed in OP. </blockquote><p>You're not reading the rules. The rule specifically includes instantaneous effects (such as healing and fireball).
<div class="messageboard-quotee">GUIDE 4.0 wrote:</div><blockquote><p>The following spells, found in the Pathfinder RPG Core
</p>
Rulebook, are not legal for play and may never be used, found,
<br />
purchased, or learned in any form by PCs playing Pathfinder
<br />
Society scenarios: awaken, permanency, reincarnate.
<br />
Any spell cast by a PC during the course of a scenario
<br />
that is still active at the end of a scenario ends when the
<br />
scenario does. For example, if your cleric PC casts bless on
<br />
the party and bless is still active when the scenario ends,
<br />
the bless spell ends at the conclusion of the scenario.<b>This includes spells with an instantaneous or permanent
<br />
duration</b>, such as continual flame, create undead or fabricate. </blockquote><p>It's not pedantic to want the rules to mean what the rules say, instead of what some people think that they might be trying to say. Either the rules matter, or we can all just simply play whatever game pleases us at the time, and I can start writing awesome boons into character sheets.
<div class="messageboard-quotee">White Smoke wrote:</div><blockquote><br />
<br />
"You are appointed head of the Church of Aroden. You may now use the title Pope, and gain a +10 circumstance bonus to diplomacy and sense motive roles when dealing with any church official, regardless of deity."</blockquote><div class="messageboard-quotee">Old Spice Guy wrote:</div><blockquote><br />
<br />
"You are granted permanent rights to sleep with Venture Captain Eliza Petulingo, When doing so, she is required to scream your name at least seven times, followed by either "oh yes", or "oh gods". This boon grants you a +2 circumstance bonus when dealing with other female venture captains."</blockquote><p>Andrew Christian wrote:Fozzy Hammer wrote: (Though I've never seen an actual logical explanation of why Cure Light Wounds, Remove Disease, Raise Dead, and Restoration don't also end at end of scenario.)
Because those spells are not permanent effects. They are instantaneous effects. Yes the healing is permanent, but the actual spell effect is not. It instantaneously causes the healing to occur. Just like the damage from a fireball is permanent because the spell is instantaneous.
Lets not get...Fozzy Hammer (alias of crmanriq)2011-09-06T16:34:32ZRe: Suggestions/House Rules/Homebrew: What non-core spells should be permanency-able?Fozzy Hammer (alias of crmanriq)http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2mtai?What-noncore-spells-should-be-permanencyable#22011-09-06T15:55:50Z2011-09-06T15:55:50Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">Tiny Coffee Golem wrote:</div><blockquote><p> Another thread asked about non core book spells that were legal to make permanent for PFS. The answer is no spells can be made permanent for PFS. </p>
<p><b>Assuming a house game what spells would you like to be able to be made permanent that are not listed on the permanency spell list?</b> SPells from Paizo products specifically.</p>
<p>For those who need a refresher;
<br />
&bull;&bull; spoiler omitted &bull;&bull;... </blockquote><p>This really needs to be in the Rules section. Making (Not PFS) part of the actual subject makes it obvious you are posting in the wrong place!!!Tiny Coffee Golem wrote:Another thread asked about non core book spells that were legal to make permanent for PFS. The answer is no spells can be made permanent for PFS.
Assuming a house game what spells would you like to be able to be made permanent that are not listed on the permanency spell list? SPells from Paizo products specifically.
For those who need a refresher;
** spoiler omitted **...
This really needs to be in the Rules section. Making (Not PFS) part of the actual subject makes...Fozzy Hammer (alias of crmanriq)2011-09-06T15:55:50ZRe: Pathfinder Society®: General Discussion: Permanency for spells not in core bookFozzy Hammer (alias of crmanriq)http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2mt7z?Permanency-for-spells-not-in-core-book#192011-09-06T15:52:02Z2011-09-06T15:52:02Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">Chris Mortika wrote:</div><blockquote><p> The whole "instantaneous spells end at the conclusion of a scenario" is vague. <i>Animate dead</i> goes away, but <i>raise dead</i> doesn't. <i>Rusting grasp</i> goes away, but <i>mending</i> doesn't.</p>
<p>What finally made the idea click for me is realizing that <i>fireball</i> goes away. Well, sure. If you take damage from a fireball, you heal up gradually and are at full health at the beginning of the next scenario. So, spells fade between scenarios, rather than blinking out. <i>Blindness</i> is normally a permanent spell, but it fades in PFS &mdash; maybe there's an ablative spell-disruption field overlaying the Absalom lodge? <i>Cure Serious Wounds</i> ends, but gradually, allowing natural healing to take over as it fades away. Likewise, the magic of a <i>make whole</i> spell evaporates, but the PC is probably physically repairing the item during down time, making up for the dwindling dwoemer. </blockquote><p>Nope, still doesn't work. If that were true, then a character killed by a fireball wouldn't ever need to pay for raise dead. He'd simply wait for the scenario to end and be just fine and dandy.
<p>The rule makes no actual sense in application. Either all spells stop, or none of them do.</p>Chris Mortika wrote:The whole "instantaneous spells end at the conclusion of a scenario" is vague. Animate dead goes away, but raise dead doesn't. Rusting grasp goes away, but mending doesn't.
What finally made the idea click for me is realizing that fireball goes away. Well, sure. If you take damage from a fireball, you heal up gradually and are at full health at the beginning of the next scenario. So, spells fade between scenarios, rather than blinking out. Blindness is normally a...Fozzy Hammer (alias of crmanriq)2011-09-06T15:52:02ZRe: Pathfinder Society®: General Discussion: Permanency for spells not in core bookFozzy Hammer (alias of crmanriq)http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2mt7z?Permanency-for-spells-not-in-core-book#132011-09-06T14:24:00Z2011-09-06T14:24:00Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">james maissen wrote:</div><blockquote> <div class="messageboard-quotee">Suzaku wrote:</div><blockquote><br />
<br />
If it becomes legal can we then discuss it? ;p
<br />
(I really wish it was legal). </blockquote><p>As long as it would be tracked and properly paid for there really isn't a reason to have it banned.
<p>It's more of a 'it's always been this way in organized campaigns' kind of thing. It's part of the core rules and really shouldn't be excluded.</p>
<p>I know in LG you had sorcerers electing to take see invis as a known spell when they might not have, and then just spammed casting it every 2-4hours.</p>
<p>-James </blockquote><p>I suspect that like all house rules, permanency comes down to the campaign GM's individual prejudices against parts of the rules.
<p>If you look at the things that are banned within the campaign, by and large they affect casters more than they affect non-casters. Whole swath's of UM are completely banned from PFS, magic item creation is largely banned, even permanent and instantaneous spells end at end of scenario. (Though I've never seen an actual logical explanation of why Cure Light Wounds, Remove Disease, Raise Dead, and Restoration don't also end at end of scenario.)</p>james maissen wrote:Suzaku wrote:
If it becomes legal can we then discuss it? ;p
(I really wish it was legal).
As long as it would be tracked and properly paid for there really isn't a reason to have it banned. It's more of a 'it's always been this way in organized campaigns' kind of thing. It's part of the core rules and really shouldn't be excluded.
I know in LG you had sorcerers electing to take see invis as a known spell when they might not have, and then just spammed casting it every...Fozzy Hammer (alias of crmanriq)2011-09-06T14:24:00ZRe: Pathfinder Society®: General Discussion: How to check a player's historyFozzy Hammer (alias of crmanriq)http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2mt0l?How-to-check-a-players-history#412011-09-06T18:04:54Z2011-09-06T14:16:03Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">Mark Garringer wrote:</div><blockquote> <div class="messageboard-quotee">Fozzy Hammer wrote:</div><blockquote>But it's not really in the form of a rule. </blockquote>Right, it does not appear that the Guide expressly forbids you from having more than 1 unique tracking number per player in PFS. &bull;sigh&bull; </blockquote><p>Ya. It appears to fall into that realm of "things that everyone thinks are rules, but aren't".
<p>"Evil acts are forbidden" (No such rule)
<br />
"You can't have more than one PFS number" (No such rule)
<br />
"You can't have more than one messageboard account" (No such rule)
<br />
"You can't craft in PFS" (Crafting Skill is never called out as disallowed).
<br />
"Item creation is not allowed" (Arcane Bond)</p>Mark Garringer wrote:Fozzy Hammer wrote:But it's not really in the form of a rule.
Right, it does not appear that the Guide expressly forbids you from having more than 1 unique tracking number per player in PFS. *sigh* Ya. It appears to fall into that realm of "things that everyone thinks are rules, but aren't". "Evil acts are forbidden" (No such rule)
"You can't have more than one PFS number" (No such rule)
"You can't have more than one messageboard account" (No such rule)
"You can't craft...Fozzy Hammer (alias of crmanriq)2011-09-06T14:16:03ZRe: Pathfinder Society®: General Discussion: How to check a player's historyFozzy Hammer (alias of crmanriq)http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2mt0l?How-to-check-a-players-history#382011-09-06T13:46:18Z2011-09-06T13:46:18Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">Mark Garringer wrote:</div><blockquote> <div class="messageboard-quotee">Fozzy Hammer wrote:</div><blockquote> <div class="messageboard-quotee">K Neil Shackleton wrote:</div><blockquote></p>
<p>And I hope you're not saying you have multiple accounts, as that is frowned upon by the web team.
<br />
</blockquote>I've looked at the messageboard policies, and I can see nothing in reference to this. Can you post a reference? </blockquote>Not to speak for Neil, but he may be thinking of playing under 2 different PFS numbers. Which <i>isn't</i> what you said you were doing. </blockquote><p>Well, there is:
<div class="messageboard-quotee">page wrote:</div><blockquote>Warning: If you already have a registration card do not click this button.</blockquote><p>But it's not really in the form of a rule.Mark Garringer wrote:Fozzy Hammer wrote: K Neil Shackleton wrote:And I hope you're not saying you have multiple accounts, as that is frowned upon by the web team.
I've looked at the messageboard policies, and I can see nothing in reference to this. Can you post a reference? Not to speak for Neil, but he may be thinking of playing under 2 different PFS numbers. Which isn't what you said you were doing. Well, there is: page wrote:Warning: If you already have a registration card do not click...Fozzy Hammer (alias of crmanriq)2011-09-06T13:46:18ZRe: Pathfinder Society®: General Discussion: How to check a player's historyFozzy Hammer (alias of crmanriq)http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2mt0l?How-to-check-a-players-history#372011-09-06T13:42:52Z2011-09-06T13:42:52Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">Mark Garringer wrote:</div><blockquote> <div class="messageboard-quotee">Fozzy Hammer wrote:</div><blockquote> <div class="messageboard-quotee">K Neil Shackleton wrote:</div><blockquote></p>
<p>And I hope you're not saying you have multiple accounts, as that is frowned upon by the web team.
<br />
</blockquote>I've looked at the messageboard policies, and I can see nothing in reference to this. Can you post a reference? </blockquote>Not to speak for Neil, but he may be thinking of playing under 2 different PFS numbers. Which <i>isn't</i> what you said you were doing. </blockquote><p>I can't think that there would be much point of trying to have two different PFS numbers. (Though I can't even find a reference for that, but it's moot to me).
<p>Given that most people generally play with a specific play group, the GM's will generally have your PFS number on file (or on a list, or in a spreadsheet), and playing under separate numbers will just come up as cheesy. </p>
<p>The only reason I could see someone trying is if they wanted to try to get credit for the same scenario multiple times, but the local players would already know that you had played in the scenario. </p>
<p>You might be able to go to a convention and re-play a scenario, but then how would you bring that character back to your home play group? </p>
<p>Even if you were to claim (or in fact did) lose track of your number, then you have still got your friends and fellow players knowing which scenarios you've played, and which you haven't.</p>
<p>Lies are too difficult to keep track of. Too much work for me.</p>Mark Garringer wrote:Fozzy Hammer wrote: K Neil Shackleton wrote:And I hope you're not saying you have multiple accounts, as that is frowned upon by the web team.
I've looked at the messageboard policies, and I can see nothing in reference to this. Can you post a reference? Not to speak for Neil, but he may be thinking of playing under 2 different PFS numbers. Which isn't what you said you were doing. I can't think that there would be much point of trying to have two different PFS numbers....Fozzy Hammer (alias of crmanriq)2011-09-06T13:42:52ZRe: Pathfinder Society®: General Discussion: How to check a player's historyFozzy Hammer (alias of crmanriq)http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2mt0l?How-to-check-a-players-history#342011-09-06T12:37:36Z2011-09-06T12:37:36Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">K Neil Shackleton wrote:</div><blockquote><br />
<br />
<div class="messageboard-quotee">Fozzy Hammer wrote:</div><blockquote><br />
<br />
Given we've already seen one GM say that he likes to look through past chronicles looking for completed faction missions that he can ascribe as "evil acts", I'd hate for some GM that I've never sat down with to decide that a character that I play that has never appeared at his table is evil, based on past success or failure of certain faction missions.</blockquote><p>Can you link to that post?
</p>
I recall GMs saying they would flag evil actions on Chronicles (including during Faction Missions), and GMs who would audit Chronicles and deal with characters based on repeated flags. I must have missed someone saying they would retroactively determine a past Prestige gained from another GM must have been an evil act. </blockquote><a href="http://paizo.com/paizo/messageboards/paizoPublishing/pathfinder/pathfinderSociety/general/sczarniAndNotBeingEvil&amp;page=1#4" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">ThePost</a><div class="messageboard-quotee">Chris Mortika wrote:</div><blockquote>As a GM, I've considered those to be traps: if your PC tries to complete them, I'll note as much on your character sheet. If I already see such a note (<b>or see that you received prestige award in such a scenario</b>), I'll write a note moving your character's alignment one step closer to Evil. If you were already Neutral, your character becomes unplayable.</blockquote><p>K Neil Shackleton wrote:Fozzy Hammer wrote:
Given we've already seen one GM say that he likes to look through past chronicles looking for completed faction missions that he can ascribe as "evil acts", I'd hate for some GM that I've never sat down with to decide that a character that I play that has never appeared at his table is evil, based on past success or failure of certain faction missions.
Can you link to that post?
I recall GMs saying they would flag evil actions on Chronicles...Fozzy Hammer (alias of crmanriq)2011-09-06T12:37:36ZRe: Pathfinder Society®: General Discussion: How to check a player's historyFozzy Hammer (alias of crmanriq)http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2mt0l?How-to-check-a-players-history#332011-09-06T12:32:54Z2011-09-06T12:32:54Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">K Neil Shackleton wrote:</div><blockquote></p>
<p>And I hope you're not saying you have multiple accounts, as that is frowned upon by the web team.
<br />
</blockquote><p>I've looked at the messageboard policies, and I can see nothing in reference to this. Can you post a reference?K Neil Shackleton wrote:And I hope you're not saying you have multiple accounts, as that is frowned upon by the web team.
I've looked at the messageboard policies, and I can see nothing in reference to this. Can you post a reference?Fozzy Hammer (alias of crmanriq)2011-09-06T12:32:54ZRe: Pathfinder Society®: General Discussion: How to check a player's historyFozzy Hammer (alias of crmanriq)http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2mt0l?How-to-check-a-players-history#292011-09-06T05:10:16Z2011-09-06T05:10:16Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">Deussu wrote:</div><blockquote><p> Personally I wouldn't need to know what's your real name, where you live etc. but more about what your character has done.</p>
<p>Let's take an example, like online games. Since there's no real way of checking what games everyone has played via the reporting tool here at Paizo's, it falls to the honor system. I don't mind that, but in particular cases it could be useful to see whether characters 47261-4, 61441-2, 44154-10 and 77163-3 have played scenario #4-05. </blockquote><p>Unless that you believe someone is lying to you, simply asking them should be sufficient.
<p>If you believe someone is lying to you, and that they have in fact played a module previously, then you have multiple options.</p>
<p>1) "I'm sorry, but I can't give you credit for this module. You can either play the character you were going to play, for zero credit, or you can play a pregen."</p>
<p>2) "I really think you are lying to me about whether or not you have played this module before. As you have apparently broken the "Don't Cheat" rule, I'm not comfortable having you at my table any further. Please leave."</p>Deussu wrote:Personally I wouldn't need to know what's your real name, where you live etc. but more about what your character has done.
Let's take an example, like online games. Since there's no real way of checking what games everyone has played via the reporting tool here at Paizo's, it falls to the honor system. I don't mind that, but in particular cases it could be useful to see whether characters 47261-4, 61441-2, 44154-10 and 77163-3 have played scenario #4-05.
Unless that you believe...Fozzy Hammer (alias of crmanriq)2011-09-06T05:10:16ZRe: Pathfinder Society®: General Discussion: Permanency for spells not in core bookFozzy Hammer (alias of crmanriq)http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2mt7z?Permanency-for-spells-not-in-core-book#82011-09-06T01:25:19Z2011-09-06T01:25:19Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">GUIDE 4.0 wrote:</div><blockquote><p>Spells
</p>
The following spells, found in the Pathfinder RPG Core
<br />
Rulebook, are <b>not legal for play and may never be used, found,
<br />
purchased, or learned in any form by PCs playing Pathfinder
<br />
Society scenarios: awaken, permanency, reincarnate.
<br />
Any spell cast by a PC during the course of a scenario
<br />
that is still active at the end of a scenario ends when the
<br />
scenario does. </b>For example, if your cleric PC casts bless on
<br />
the party and bless is still active when the scenario ends,
<br />
the bless spell ends at the conclusion of the scenario. <b>This
<br />
includes spells with an instantaneous or permanent
<br />
duration, such as continual flame, create undead or fabricate.</b>
<br />
</blockquote><p>GUIDE 4.0 wrote:Spells
The following spells, found in the Pathfinder RPG Core
Rulebook, are not legal for play and may never be used, found,
purchased, or learned in any form by PCs playing Pathfinder
Society scenarios: awaken, permanency, reincarnate.
Any spell cast by a PC during the course of a scenario
that is still active at the end of a scenario ends when the
scenario does. For example, if your cleric PC casts bless on
the party and bless is still active when the scenario ends,
the...Fozzy Hammer (alias of crmanriq)2011-09-06T01:25:19ZRe: Pathfinder Society®: General Discussion: Upgrading Named Magic Armor/Weapons in PFS?Fozzy Hammer (alias of crmanriq)http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2mqjs&page=2?Upgrading-Named-Magic-ArmorWeapons-in-PFS#852011-09-06T01:05:10Z2011-09-06T01:05:10Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">Mike Schneider wrote:</div><blockquote> <div class="messageboard-quotee">sieylianna wrote:</div><blockquote> <div class="messageboard-quotee">Fozzy Hammer wrote:</div><blockquote> 2 Competence Bonus on all Charisma based checks = 400 x #of checks. Bluff, Diplomacy, Disguise, Handle... </blockquote>Except the circlet of persuasion provides a +3 competence bonus to all Charisma related checks for 4,500 gold. So even though it's shifting a slot, I think 6,000 is too high. </blockquote>Multiply x2 for not being tied to the head slot, and it'd be 9k. </blockquote><p>There is no price increase for shifting from one body slot (head) to another body slot (armor).
<p>3.5 had a 1.5x cost multiplier for "Uncustomary Space Limitation" and Pathfinder and 3.5 both have a 2x multiplier for "No Space Limitation", but "Armor" is listed as one of the 15 body slots:</p>
<div class="messageboard-quotee">PRD wrote:</div><blockquote><p>Armor: suits of armor.
</p>
Belts: belts and girdles.
<br />
Body: robes and vestments.
<br />
Chest: mantles, shirts, and vests.
<br />
Eyes: eyes, glasses, and goggles.
<br />
Feet: boots, shoes, and slippers.
<br />
Hands: gauntlets and gloves.
<br />
Head: circlets, crowns, hats, helms, and masks.
<br />
Headband: headbands and phylacteries.
<br />
Neck: amulets, brooches, medallions, necklaces, periapts, and scarabs.
<br />
Ring (up to two): rings.
<br />
Shield: shields.
<br />
Shoulders: capes and cloaks.
<br />
Wrist: bracelets and bracers. </blockquote><p>Mike Schneider wrote:sieylianna wrote: Fozzy Hammer wrote: 2 Competence Bonus on all Charisma based checks = 400 x #of checks. Bluff, Diplomacy, Disguise, Handle...
Except the circlet of persuasion provides a +3 competence bonus to all Charisma related checks for 4,500 gold. So even though it's shifting a slot, I think 6,000 is too high. Multiply x2 for not being tied to the head slot, and it'd be 9k. There is no price increase for shifting from one body slot (head) to another body slot...Fozzy Hammer (alias of crmanriq)2011-09-06T01:05:10ZRe: Pathfinder Society®: General Discussion: Sczarni and not being evilFozzy Hammer (alias of crmanriq)http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2mo5i&page=8?Sczarni-and-not-being-evil#3662011-09-06T00:35:04Z2011-09-06T00:35:04Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">LazarX wrote:</div><blockquote> <div class="messageboard-quotee">K Neil Shackleton wrote:</div><blockquote><p> Fozzy, what does a PFS GM do when your discussion doesn't work?</p>
<p>And when you encounter the player at multiple locations? </blockquote><p><b>As a DM, I go to the campaign coordinator and let them know I want to eject a player from my table.</b>
<p>Thing is... it's really a small world out there.. Within a region a player can build up enough bad blood to get to the point where he's effectively ostracized from gaming. I've seen it happen with one person to whom I'm of close acquaintance back in the Living Greyhawk/Living City days. </blockquote><p>You really don't even need a VC's approval. If it were me, I would have phrased the bolded quote as:
<p><b>As a DM, I go to the campaign coordinator and let them know that I have ejected a player from my table.</b></p>
<p>I've never had to eject a player, and I hope that I never do, but if that time comes, at my table, it is my option who plays and who does not.</p>LazarX wrote:K Neil Shackleton wrote:Fozzy, what does a PFS GM do when your discussion doesn't work?
And when you encounter the player at multiple locations?
As a DM, I go to the campaign coordinator and let them know I want to eject a player from my table. Thing is... it's really a small world out there.. Within a region a player can build up enough bad blood to get to the point where he's effectively ostracized from gaming. I've seen it happen with one person to whom I'm of close...Fozzy Hammer (alias of crmanriq)2011-09-06T00:35:04ZRe: Pathfinder Society®: General Discussion: How to check a player's historyFozzy Hammer (alias of crmanriq)http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2mt0l?How-to-check-a-players-history#272011-09-06T00:31:31Z2011-09-06T00:31:31Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">LazarX wrote:</div><blockquote> <div class="messageboard-quotee">Nevynxxx wrote:</div><blockquote> The tech can be used for good or bad I suppose. But I'd be interested to know why you would be worried about others knowing what scenarios your characters have played? </blockquote>Privacy is a slippery slope. Once you ask one thing, others get expected. <b> And quite frankly, the concept of inalienable rights means that I don't need to justify my expectation of them to anyone.</b> If needs came down to it, Paizo HAS that info, at least for every session that's actually been recorded. What need DO YOU have for my information that can't be addressed by less invasive methods including a registration site like Warhorn? If you don't trust me as a player, don't play with me. If you don't trust me as GM, boycott my table. It's really quite that simple. </blockquote><p>Precisely the reason that I do not, and will never post under a name/id that can be connected to my play history. I've already seen one VC here post what he thought was my play history, in public, without my permission. I've seen multiple VC's post about other forum member's play histories as well. Despite Paizo's apparently posted privacy policy.
<p>Given we've already seen one GM say that he likes to look through past chronicles looking for completed faction missions that he can ascribe as "evil acts", I'd hate for some GM that I've never sat down with to decide that a character that I play that has never appeared at his table is evil, based on past success or failure of certain faction missions.</p>
<p>Who I am, where I am, where I've played, and who I have played with are all my private data, not to be given out without my consent, thankyouverymuch.</p>LazarX wrote:Nevynxxx wrote: The tech can be used for good or bad I suppose. But I'd be interested to know why you would be worried about others knowing what scenarios your characters have played?
Privacy is a slippery slope. Once you ask one thing, others get expected. And quite frankly, the concept of inalienable rights means that I don't need to justify my expectation of them to anyone. If needs came down to it, Paizo HAS that info, at least for every session that's actually been...Fozzy Hammer (alias of crmanriq)2011-09-06T00:31:31ZRe: Pathfinder Society GM Discussion: Scent vs Invisibility: Feeling out the authority of a PFS GMFozzy Hammer (alias of crmanriq)http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2mso1&page=2?Scent-vs-Invisibility-Feeling-out-the#522011-09-04T14:48:56Z2011-09-04T14:48:56Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">james maissen wrote:</div><blockquote> <div class="messageboard-quotee">heretic wrote:</div><blockquote><br />
<br />
The scent section does appear pretty clear in that it must auto work as it simply says creatuires "can" detect without defining it mechanically i.e. by linking it to any skill e.g. Pereption.
<br />
</blockquote><p>Interesting that you should mention Perception.
<p>What senses does Perception cover? Everything but smell? No.</p>
<p>Now let's look at where they define vision. Hmm no mention of the Perception skill there either. </p>
<p>But when we go to tremorsense, blindsense and blindsight.. wow there's where it directly says they automake such perception checks.</p>
<div class="messageboard-quotee">heretic wrote:</div><blockquote><br />
<br />
Scent is a bit like being able to hear with your nose. No matter how good you are at hugging the shadows if you enter the room and start singing at the top of your lungs you will get detected.
<br />
</blockquote><p>Yep, anyone not trying to be hidden from a given sense are automatically detected within the range of that sense. This is true whether it's vision, hearing, or even smell.
<div class="messageboard-quotee">heretic wrote:</div><blockquote><br />
<br />
We don't require Perception checks for PCs to talk to eachother even in the heat of battle neither should we allow a stealth roll to ignore the lound and tuneless singing eminating from the would be stealther!</blockquote><p>You're leaping around here. Rather than just skim some of this thread, why don't you go back to read my posts on it?
<p>To follow along with what you're saying.. we DO require Perception checks for PCs that are properly using stealth to remain unobserved by all senses. Not just sight and sound.</p>
<p>So if a PC wishes to try to sneak past a guard (or a guard dog) then they might have a chance if they can satisfy the requirements of the skill.</p>
<p>This is very different from claiming that the PC can openly walk past the guard without being seen, or the guard needing to see a PC walking in the open.</p>
<p>But that doesn't mean that the guard DOES need to make a Perception check when the PC is sneaking around using cover relative to the guard in order to maintain stealth.</p>
<p>When you have two possible ways to read a line... </blockquote><p>James,
<p>The only problem I have with this argument is that in order to make a stealth check, you need cover or concealment against all the senses you are trying to stealth against.</p>
<p>There are specific things a character _could_ do to cover or conceal their scent, but none of these involve sneaking past visual cover. They involve things like <i>Negate Aroma</i>, or "I douse myself in water so that until I start drying, the water will conceal my smell."</p>
<p>So you've essentially got a character in plain view of a creature's scent sense, but it seems you are saying that creature will not autodetect the character within the range of the scent ability. </p>
<p>Can you reconcile this with your argument?</p>james maissen wrote:heretic wrote:
The scent section does appear pretty clear in that it must auto work as it simply says creatuires "can" detect without defining it mechanically i.e. by linking it to any skill e.g. Pereption.
Interesting that you should mention Perception. What senses does Perception cover? Everything but smell? No.
Now let's look at where they define vision. Hmm no mention of the Perception skill there either.
But when we go to tremorsense, blindsense and blindsight.....Fozzy Hammer (alias of crmanriq)2011-09-04T14:48:56ZRe: Pathfinder Society®: General Discussion: Playing a pregnant PC?Fozzy Hammer (alias of crmanriq)http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2msm1?Playing-a-pregnant-PC#482011-09-02T20:42:15Z2011-09-02T20:42:15Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">nosig wrote:</div><blockquote><p> My wife asked me about this as she was drawing up her new PC. Seems she was looking a dumping Dex and figured this would be cute. So, if a Player states her PC is visibly pregnant (that would be "with child") and role plays it to the max (I can see some fun times at the tables ahead) can she just stay that way? I mean, as far as I can tell, time away from the table is kind of abstract so ... how long can she be "in a family way".
</p>
I told her she could always have her PC take a few month off to have the kid, develope the condition again and go adventuring again. Kind of odd thou, having a PC who only adventures when she is 5+ months along. </p>
<p>Anyway - just wanted to hear other peoples thoughts on this. </blockquote><p>I'm just thinking about the role-playing opportunity this opens up for the rest of the table.
<p>Halfling - "Pregnant? I thought you were just getting fat."</p>
<p>Half-Orc /leering/ - "Ah, that's why I keep thinking I'm thirsty."</p>
<p>Dwarf - "What, you gonna whine all day 'bout yer condition. Me ma, she was adventuring all through her pregnancy. Never stopped reminding me how she crouched to duck a battleaxe swing, and I just dropped out."</p>
<p>Elf - "Hmm. What's your gestational period? You people do breed like rabbits don't you. How...distasteful. /takes a step away as though not wanting to "catch cooties"/"</p>
<p>Gnome - "Hmm. I have this alchemical infusion that I've been wanting to try on a pregnant subject. It has a 74% chance of making your child 3% smarter. And only a 14% chance of the child spontaneously mutating and bursting forth immediately. Here. Drink this!"</p>nosig wrote:My wife asked me about this as she was drawing up her new PC. Seems she was looking a dumping Dex and figured this would be cute. So, if a Player states her PC is visibly pregnant (that would be "with child") and role plays it to the max (I can see some fun times at the tables ahead) can she just stay that way? I mean, as far as I can tell, time away from the table is kind of abstract so ... how long can she be "in a family way".
I told her she could always have her PC take a few...Fozzy Hammer (alias of crmanriq)2011-09-02T20:42:15ZRe: Pathfinder Society GM Discussion: Scent vs Invisibility: Feeling out the authority of a PFS GMFozzy Hammer (alias of crmanriq)http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2mso1?Scent-vs-Invisibility-Feeling-out-the#422011-09-02T20:25:11Z2011-09-02T20:25:11Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">nosig wrote:</div><blockquote> Thanks Fozzy. The <b>"Have a bear!"</b> is my dwarven clerics tag line (can you guess his diety?). I also do try not to "take advantage of the GMs" - I much prefer to play with the GM rather than against him. I try to avoid the ones who have to play against the players. </blockquote><p>A dwarf saying "Have a bear!" lol! Yep, I bet they appeal to some.
<p>Thinking about Legolas and Gimli and those late nights at Helms Deep...</p>nosig wrote:Thanks Fozzy. The "Have a bear!" is my dwarven clerics tag line (can you guess his diety?). I also do try not to "take advantage of the GMs" - I much prefer to play with the GM rather than against him. I try to avoid the ones who have to play against the players.
A dwarf saying "Have a bear!" lol! Yep, I bet they appeal to some. Thinking about Legolas and Gimli and those late nights at Helms Deep...Fozzy Hammer (alias of crmanriq)2011-09-02T20:25:11ZRe: Pathfinder Society GM Discussion: Scent vs Invisibility: Feeling out the authority of a PFS GMFozzy Hammer (alias of crmanriq)http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2mso1?Scent-vs-Invisibility-Feeling-out-the#402011-09-02T20:16:27Z2011-09-02T20:16:27Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">Thorkull wrote:</div><blockquote> <div class="messageboard-quotee">Fozzy Hammer wrote:</div><blockquote><br />
<br />
I will add to Neil's statement that as adamant and strident as I might be on the board here, at the table I defer to the GM. If any rules discussion at the table runs for more than 30 seconds I'll try to jump forward with "I think the GM should make his call, whatever it is, and after the module we can look up to see what the rule actually is."</p>
<p>During time when I'm waiting for a turn, I'll find the relevant rules text and mark it, and after the session, I'll generally say something like, "Just for future reference, here's the rules text for X."</p>
<p>Really, the time to talk the rules is outside of game (here, while waiting for the session, after the session, whatever). During the game is where all the time you spent debating rules boils into make a call, keep playing, keep the fun going. Never argue the rules with the GM during the session. Time is too short, and generally it interrupts the story. I'd much rather stay in role and trust that I've trained the GM (at least that's how I think of it :)) well enough by now.</blockquote>You're welcome at any table I run, anytime :) </blockquote><p>Sir, I thank you.Thorkull wrote:Fozzy Hammer wrote:
I will add to Neil's statement that as adamant and strident as I might be on the board here, at the table I defer to the GM. If any rules discussion at the table runs for more than 30 seconds I'll try to jump forward with "I think the GM should make his call, whatever it is, and after the module we can look up to see what the rule actually is."During time when I'm waiting for a turn, I'll find the relevant rules text and mark it, and after the session, I'll...Fozzy Hammer (alias of crmanriq)2011-09-02T20:16:27ZRe: Pathfinder Society GM Discussion: Scent vs Invisibility: Feeling out the authority of a PFS GMFozzy Hammer (alias of crmanriq)http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2mso1?Scent-vs-Invisibility-Feeling-out-the#392011-09-02T20:14:29Z2011-09-02T20:14:29Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">nosig wrote:</div><blockquote><p> this came up during a game recently. </p>
<p>my character got to act in the surprize round and won init and moved up on the BBG (as in right beside). No attack - just a move action.</p>
<p>the Judge said, "He draws his sword, so you get an AOO". </p>
<p>I said, "for what? Drawing a weapon doesn't cause an AOO".</p>
<p>Judge reply "sure it does, it has sense 3.0"</p>
<p>Me... "Ah... no. but ok. wait - I don't have a weapon out, all I have is a mug of beer (my holy symbol) - so I'll offer him a drink."</p>
<p>Should I have gone ahead and taken the AOO? My PC actually had out his ax when he moved up - I wanted an AOO if the BBG was spell casting (and my character is designed to "draw fire" anyway). But it felt like I would have been cheating - I know there is no AOO for drawing? Later I drew my ax to soak off his AOO so the party rogue could move past him and flank. </p>
<p>(and after the game I showed the judge the table in the Core book - at which he said "wow, I keep getting these PF changes from 3.0 popping up". I didn't argue this, 'cause it didn't matter. He's more likely to do it right in the future which is all that really matters). </p>
<p>So do you play by the rules when you know them? or use the rules you know the DM is wrong on during play and correct him later?</p>
<p></blockquote><div class="messageboard-quotee">d20srd.org - 3.5 SRD wrote:</div><blockquote><br />
<br />
Table: Move Actions
<br />
Action Attack of Opportunity
<br />
Move Yes
<br />
Control a frightened mount Yes
<br />
Direct or redirect an active spell No
<br />
<b>Draw a weapon2 No</b>
<br />
Load a hand crossbow or light crossbow Yes
<br />
Open or close a door No
<br />
Mount a horse or dismount No
<br />
Move a heavy object Yes
<br />
Pick up an item Yes
<br />
Sheathe a weapon Yes
<br />
Stand up from prone Yes
<br />
Ready or loose a shield2 No
<br />
Retrieve a stored item Yes</p>
<p>Draw or Sheathe a Weapon</p>
<p>Drawing a weapon so that you can use it in combat, or putting it away so that you have a free hand, requires a move action. This action also applies to weapon-like objects carried in easy reach, such as wands. If your weapon or weapon-like object is stored in a pack or otherwise out of easy reach, treat this action as retrieving a stored item.</p>
<p>If you have a base attack bonus of +1 or higher, you may draw a weapon as a free action combined with a regular move. If you have the Two-Weapon Fighting feat, you can draw two light or one-handed weapons in the time it would normally take you to draw one.</p>
<p>Drawing ammunition for use with a ranged weapon (such as arrows, bolts, sling bullets, or shuriken) is a free action. </blockquote><p>Your GM was more than a little out of date.
<p>Personally, I try not to take advantage of a GM's lack of rules knowledge. It's a hard temptation though, and I can't claim that I always live up to my own ideal.</p>
<p>I like the "I offer him a drink!" idea. Sounded like a fine way to run up against that line.</p>nosig wrote:this came up during a game recently.
my character got to act in the surprize round and won init and moved up on the BBG (as in right beside). No attack - just a move action.
the Judge said, "He draws his sword, so you get an AOO".
I said, "for what? Drawing a weapon doesn't cause an AOO".
Judge reply "sure it does, it has sense 3.0"
Me... "Ah... no. but ok. wait - I don't have a weapon out, all I have is a mug of beer (my holy symbol) - so I'll offer him a drink."
Should I...Fozzy Hammer (alias of crmanriq)2011-09-02T20:14:29ZRe: Pathfinder Society®: General Discussion: A couple of questions on the new Crafting rules for AlchemistsFozzy Hammer (alias of crmanriq)http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2msqx?A-couple-of-questions-on-the-new-Crafting#42011-09-02T20:06:51Z2011-09-02T20:06:51Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">Grumph Bronzebeard wrote:</div><blockquote><p> Hi all, I spent yesterday evening making a new alchemist gnome character for my weekly Monday night PFS game. With my first character hitting 4th level and some n00bs still occasionally joining the group, I wanted a new 1st level character in case we run the 1-2 tier for a scenario. I'm very excited to see that alchemist can use craft(alchemy) now in PFS. The character will be sort of a jack of all trades, but his primary offensive option will involve splash weapons and bombs. So I was hoping to get some clarifications on the rules.</p>
<p>Since time is not a measurable commodity in PFS, it would seem to me that the alchemist could make as many alchemist's fires, acids, etc. as his little gnomish heart desires. Is this correct?</p>
<p>Also can I "take ten" on these rolls? I would assume so by the core rules which gives me a result of 20 so I should be able to make anything up to that difficulty without a roll. </p>
<p>If I try something more difficult and fail, what are the consequences? Normally a failure of 4 or less just results in no progress on the crafting for that week, however in PFS that has no bearing. Can I simply try again, or do I need to move on without that product until I complete another scenario. A failure of 5 or more costs some resources, but I would think I could just mark that off and try again.</p>
<p>Not sure there's been any sort of official ruling on this, unless my search-fu has failed me. I know this isn't clarified directly in the FAQs.</p>
<p>Any insight that people can provide would be much appreciated. </blockquote><div class="messageboard-quotee">FAQ wrote:</div><blockquote><p>How can alchemists craft in Pathfinder Society Organized Play?</p>
<p>Alchemists can use the Craft (alchemy) skill to produce items with their Alchemy ability. Follow the Craft rules on pages 91–93 of the Pathfinder RPG Core Rulebook as well as in the alchemist’s Alchemy ability description. Any item created must be properly noted on that scenario’s Chronicle sheet. Under "Items Bought", note the amount of gold spent and the item created.</p>
<p>Alchemists are assumed, for Pathfinder Society Organized Play, to carry the necessary items and tools with them to use available resources to create alchemical items. If they have a base of operations from which to do so, they may use an alchemy lab to gain the +2 bonus on their Craft (alchemy) check.</p>
<p>Alchemists may never sell any of their created items nor may they trade them to another PC. However, they may allow other PCs to borrow or use items they’ve created (so long as the alchemist class ability being used allows them to do so).</p>
<p>—Mark Moreland, 08/15/11 </blockquote><p>There is currently no limit on how much out-of-game time an alchemist may spend crafting.
<p>If you fail, you may try again. It's in the Core Rules. Use them as your "bible". </p>
<p>Have your GM note the items that you have crafted, especially any that you can't make with a "Take 10"</p>
<div class="messageboard-quotee">PRD - Skills wrote:</div><blockquote>Taking 10: When your character is not in immediate danger or distracted, you may choose to take 10. Instead of rolling 1d20 for the skill check, calculate your result as if you had rolled a 10. For many routine tasks, taking 10 makes them automatically successful. Distractions or threats (such as combat) make it impossible for a character to take 10. In most cases, taking 10 is purely a safety measure—you know (or expect) that an average roll will succeed but fear that a poor roll might fail, so you elect to settle for the average roll (a 10). Taking 10 is especially useful in situations where a particularly high roll wouldn't help.</blockquote><p>Yes, you may take 10.
<div class="messageboard-quotee">PRD - Craft wrote:</div><blockquote>If you fail a check by 4 or less, you make no progress this week. If you fail by 5 or more, you ruin half the raw materials and have to pay half the original raw material cost again.</blockquote><p>If you fail by less than 5, just try again. Do it in front of a GM.Grumph Bronzebeard wrote:Hi all, I spent yesterday evening making a new alchemist gnome character for my weekly Monday night PFS game. With my first character hitting 4th level and some n00bs still occasionally joining the group, I wanted a new 1st level character in case we run the 1-2 tier for a scenario. I'm very excited to see that alchemist can use craft(alchemy) now in PFS. The character will be sort of a jack of all trades, but his primary offensive option will involve splash weapons...Fozzy Hammer (alias of crmanriq)2011-09-02T20:06:51ZRe: Pathfinder Society GM Discussion: Scent vs Invisibility: Feeling out the authority of a PFS GMFozzy Hammer (alias of crmanriq)http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2mso1?Scent-vs-Invisibility-Feeling-out-the#352011-09-02T19:48:22Z2011-09-02T19:48:22Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">K Neil Shackleton wrote:</div><blockquote> <div class="messageboard-quotee">deusvult wrote:</div><blockquote><br />
<br />
The forum is the right place to have this sort of discussion. However were this to be happening instead at an OP table, I'd be less excited. If this or any other hypothetical rules situation were to arise, does a GM get to have the ultimate answer of "Frack it, we're doing it my way so deal with it." </p>
<p>Or must an OP GM assuage any and all rules issues whenever they come up?
<br />
</blockquote><p>You absolutely may run your table, and make rulings as necessary. Fozzy is right that you should obviously make an effort to make the correct rules calls, but sometimes things fall into conflicting interpretations (like Scent/Stealth) or outside the rules completely.
<p>I frequently start my sessions with a brief statement that I welcome rules input from the players, but that sometimes I will just have to make a call and keep things moving.
<br />
Many stores and conventions only allow you a 4 hour window, including mustering and paperwork. While many scenarios can be easily completed in that time, many cannot... especially if you get bogged down in long rules discussions/ lookup sessions. </blockquote><p>I will add to Neil's statement that as adamant and strident as I might be on the board here, at the table I defer to the GM. If any rules discussion at the table runs for more than 30 seconds I'll try to jump forward with "I think the GM should make his call, whatever it is, and after the module we can look up to see what the rule actually is."
<p>During time when I'm waiting for a turn, I'll find the relevant rules text and mark it, and after the session, I'll generally say something like, "Just for future reference, here's the rules text for X."</p>
<p>Really, the time to talk the rules is outside of game (here, while waiting for the session, after the session, whatever). During the game is where all the time you spent debating rules boils into make a call, keep playing, keep the fun going. Never argue the rules with the GM during the session. Time is too short, and generally it interrupts the story. I'd much rather stay in role and trust that I've trained the GM (at least that's how I think of it :)) well enough by now.</p>K Neil Shackleton wrote:deusvult wrote:
The forum is the right place to have this sort of discussion. However were this to be happening instead at an OP table, I'd be less excited. If this or any other hypothetical rules situation were to arise, does a GM get to have the ultimate answer of "Frack it, we're doing it my way so deal with it." Or must an OP GM assuage any and all rules issues whenever they come up?
You absolutely may run your table, and make rulings as necessary. Fozzy is right...Fozzy Hammer (alias of crmanriq)2011-09-02T19:48:22ZRe: Pathfinder Society GM Discussion: Scent vs Invisibility: Feeling out the authority of a PFS GMFozzy Hammer (alias of crmanriq)http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2mso1?Scent-vs-Invisibility-Feeling-out-the#312011-09-02T17:59:40Z2011-09-02T17:59:40Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">Dragnmoon wrote:</div><blockquote> How Scent actually works aside &bull;Though I kind of agree with Seraphimpunk with James when it come to rule calls, he is terrible at it and is wrong many times, would have more if it came from Jason or SKL, and it deserves a post in the rules sections&bull; A Gm can not just change rules, but he can interpret rules that are not clear, based on everything he has. </blockquote><p>+1
<p>Random board posts are random.</p>Dragnmoon wrote:How Scent actually works aside *Though I kind of agree with Seraphimpunk with James when it come to rule calls, he is terrible at it and is wrong many times, would have more if it came from Jason or SKL, and it deserves a post in the rules sections* A Gm can not just change rules, but he can interpret rules that are not clear, based on everything he has.
+1 Random board posts are random.Fozzy Hammer (alias of crmanriq)2011-09-02T17:59:40ZRe: Pathfinder Society®: General Discussion: New updates to Core rule book - headband of intellectFozzy Hammer (alias of crmanriq)http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2msqj?New-updates-to-Core-rule-book-headband-of#32011-09-02T15:16:40Z2011-09-02T15:16:40Z<p>Also, 3.5 did not grant skill points at all.</p>
<div class="messageboard-quotee">PRD - Today wrote:</div><blockquote><p>Headband of Vast Intelligence</p>
<p>Aura moderate transmutation; CL 8th</p>
<p>Slot headband; Price 4,000 gp (+2), 16,000 gp (+4), 36,000 gp (+6); Weight 1 lb.</p>
<p>Description</p>
<p>This intricate gold headband is decorated with several small blue and deep purple gemstones. The headband grants the wearer an enhancement bonus to Intelligence of +2, +4, or +6. Treat this as a temporary ability bonus for the first 24 hours the headband is worn. A headband of vast intelligence has one skill associated with it per +2 bonus it grants. <b>After being worn for 24 hours, the headband grants a number of skill ranks in those skills equal to the wearer's total Hit Dice. </b>These ranks do not stack with the ranks a creature already possesses. These skills are chosen when the headband is created. If no skill is listed, the headband is assumed to grant skill ranks in randomly determined Knowledge skills.</p>
<p>Construction</p>
<p>Requirements Craft Wondrous Item, fox's cunning; Cost 2,000 gp (+2), 8,000 gp (+4), 18,000 gp (+6)</blockquote>Also, no change is listed in any of the errata documents for Page 517/518 (where headband of Vast Intelligence is located) </blockquote><div class="messageboard-quotee">D20SRD.ORG wrote:</div><blockquote><p>Headband of Intellect</p>
<p>This device is a light cord with a small gem set so that it rests upon the forehead of the wearer. The headband adds to the wearer’s Intelligence score in the form of an enhancement bonus of +2, +4, or +6. <b>This enhancement bonus does not earn the wearer extra skill points when a new level is attained; use the unenhanced Intelligence bonus to determine skill points.</b></p>
<p>Moderate transmutation; CL 8th; Craft Wondrous Item, fox’s cunning; Price 4,000 gp (+2), 16,000 gp (+4), 36,000 gp (+6). </blockquote><p>Also, 3.5 did not grant skill points at all.
PRD - Today wrote:Headband of Vast Intelligence
Aura moderate transmutation; CL 8th
Slot headband; Price 4,000 gp (+2), 16,000 gp (+4), 36,000 gp (+6); Weight 1 lb.
Description
This intricate gold headband is decorated with several small blue and deep purple gemstones. The headband grants the wearer an enhancement bonus to Intelligence of +2, +4, or +6. Treat this as a temporary ability bonus for the first 24 hours the headband is worn. A...Fozzy Hammer (alias of crmanriq)2011-09-02T15:16:40ZRe: Pathfinder Society®: General Discussion: New updates to Core rule book - headband of intellectFozzy Hammer (alias of crmanriq)http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2msqj?New-updates-to-Core-rule-book-headband-of#22011-09-02T15:07:31Z2011-09-02T15:07:31Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">Lab_Rat wrote:</div><blockquote><p> Thought I would bring this up in here since I know of players in our group that are doing this.</p>
<p>Headband of Intellect got updated. The update specifically says that the Int bonus from the headband does not give you retroactive new skill points to place. </p>
<p>It used to be that when you put on that headband of Intellect +2 you got your level (or 2xlvl / 3xlvl if you had the bigger headbands) in new skill points to distribute. I know of a lot of players who used this to buy into a bunch of knowledge skills they didn't start with. Needless to say they will be readjusting their characters at our next game session. </blockquote><div class="messageboard-quotee">PRD - Today wrote:</div><blockquote><p>Headband of Vast Intelligence</p>
<p>Aura moderate transmutation; CL 8th</p>
<p>Slot headband; Price 4,000 gp (+2), 16,000 gp (+4), 36,000 gp (+6); Weight 1 lb.</p>
<p>Description</p>
<p>This intricate gold headband is decorated with several small blue and deep purple gemstones. The headband grants the wearer an enhancement bonus to Intelligence of +2, +4, or +6. Treat this as a temporary ability bonus for the first 24 hours the headband is worn. A headband of vast intelligence has one skill associated with it per +2 bonus it grants. <b>After being worn for 24 hours, the headband grants a number of skill ranks in those skills equal to the wearer's total Hit Dice. </b>These ranks do not stack with the ranks a creature already possesses. These skills are chosen when the headband is created. If no skill is listed, the headband is assumed to grant skill ranks in randomly determined Knowledge skills.</p>
<p>Construction</p>
<p>Requirements Craft Wondrous Item, fox's cunning; Cost 2,000 gp (+2), 8,000 gp (+4), 18,000 gp (+6)</blockquote><p>Also, no change is listed in any of the errata documents for Page 517/518 (where headband of Vast Intelligence is located)Lab_Rat wrote:Thought I would bring this up in here since I know of players in our group that are doing this.
Headband of Intellect got updated. The update specifically says that the Int bonus from the headband does not give you retroactive new skill points to place.
It used to be that when you put on that headband of Intellect +2 you got your level (or 2xlvl / 3xlvl if you had the bigger headbands) in new skill points to distribute. I know of a lot of players who used this to buy into a...Fozzy Hammer (alias of crmanriq)2011-09-02T15:07:31ZRe: Pathfinder Society®: General Discussion: Unusually-Sized Characters in PFSFozzy Hammer (alias of crmanriq)http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2ms94?UnusuallySized-Characters-in-PFS#212011-09-02T15:04:13Z2011-09-02T15:04:13Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">Sarta wrote:</div><blockquote> <div class="messageboard-quotee">K Neil Shackleton wrote:</div><blockquote></p>
<p>Even though I'm the official stick-in-the-mud Venture-Captain, I'm going to agree with Fozzy here.
<br />
It is pretty clearly in the scope of the rules (provided the Adopted is used properly (ex Tusked, not Toothy)), and while a little weird, it's not unbalancing or something likely to become incredibly widespread due to its optimization potential.
<br />
I <i>might</i> ask the player to give a role-playing reason to explain it, though that would fall outside the PFS requirements. I'd accept the one above, but I'd bet creative players could come up with many more. </blockquote><p>Extending this logic means an elf adopted by a tribe of Shoanti can take Bred for War (as long as said elf is over six feet tall) and a dwarf adopted by Azlanti parents can take Azlanti Inheritor.
<p>By RAW, I agree that one can take any racial trait. It just seems very wrong to include physical characteristics passed down by blood, when the trait represent learning from one's adopted family. </blockquote><p>Yes, a character with the Adopted trait can take either of these traits (with the provision of Bred For War that he be at least 6 feet tall).
<p>If you do not like the fact that these traits are legal, then you should argue for a change in the rules, rather than simply ignoring the rule. </p>
<p>From a roleplaying perspective, while the text of the traits states that they are passed down by blood, one could always include a backstory detailing a blood-ceremony where the adopted child is made a member of the clan/race though a religious/cultural/magical ceremony that forever binds them to that group. </p>
<div class="messageboard-quotee">Sample Story wrote:</div><blockquote><br />
<br />
"By each cutting your hands, and binding them together, you give your child the blood of your blood. The blood of your fathers. And grandfathers. Forever hence, this child shall be ours, and we shall be his. None - not even the gods may speak otherwise."</blockquote><p>Sarta wrote:K Neil Shackleton wrote:Even though I'm the official stick-in-the-mud Venture-Captain, I'm going to agree with Fozzy here.
It is pretty clearly in the scope of the rules (provided the Adopted is used properly (ex Tusked, not Toothy)), and while a little weird, it's not unbalancing or something likely to become incredibly widespread due to its optimization potential.
I might ask the player to give a role-playing reason to explain it, though that would fall outside the PFS...Fozzy Hammer (alias of crmanriq)2011-09-02T15:04:13ZRe: Pathfinder Society GM Discussion: Scent vs Invisibility: Feeling out the authority of a PFS GMFozzy Hammer (alias of crmanriq)http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2mso1?Scent-vs-Invisibility-Feeling-out-the#182011-09-02T14:56:28Z2011-09-02T14:56:28Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">james maissen wrote:</div><blockquote> <div class="messageboard-quotee">Fozzy Hammer wrote:</div><blockquote><br />
<br />
Then if sight were automatic (someone walking in plain sight within 30 being automatically seen), there would be no sight based perception checks.</p>
<p>But there are. </blockquote><p>Right for when people are using stealth.
<p>Think of scent as vision within a 30' radius of dim light (certain conditions modify that). You can still hide from sight within that 30 feet, but have to use the stealth skill to do so. Otherwise line of sight would be sufficient. Now scent has another special in that at 5' it's automatically seen, much like having that 5' be bright light.</p>
<p>So to the original situation:
<br />
The dog rolls a perception check. This represents all of its senses.</p>
<p>The rogue's stealth check is such that with the invisibility the dog's vision is fooled. However the rogue's stealth check is not such to fool the dog's scent.</p>
<p>Thus the dog smells something nearby but doesn't see it.</p>
<p>If the dog takes a move action it gets the direction of this unseen scent.</p>
<p>If the dog moves adjacent to the rogue then it would know the square of the rogue, even though it still would not see him.</p>
<p>Make sense?</p>
<p>-James </blockquote><p>I completely agree. As I saw the argument framed, people were talking about whether Invisibility gives a -40 to the dog's ability to know something as coming. No, it doesn't because the rogue cannot use stealth to evade the dog's scent ability. His aroma is "in plain sight", which precludes the use of stealth against that ability.james maissen wrote:Fozzy Hammer wrote:
Then if sight were automatic (someone walking in plain sight within 30 being automatically seen), there would be no sight based perception checks.But there are.
Right for when people are using stealth. Think of scent as vision within a 30' radius of dim light (certain conditions modify that). You can still hide from sight within that 30 feet, but have to use the stealth skill to do so. Otherwise line of sight would be sufficient. Now scent has another...Fozzy Hammer (alias of crmanriq)2011-09-02T14:56:28ZRe: Pathfinder Society GM Discussion: Scent vs Invisibility: Feeling out the authority of a PFS GMFozzy Hammer (alias of crmanriq)http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2mso1?Scent-vs-Invisibility-Feeling-out-the#172011-09-02T14:53:39Z2011-09-02T14:53:39Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">deusvult wrote:</div><blockquote><p> I do love reading the thoughts back and forth on the forum, and indeed learning a thing or two about the rules in the process.. so many thanks to those who put in their two bits and helped teach me stuff I didn't know that I didn't know about scent.</p>
<p>The forum is the right place to have this sort of discussion. However were this to be happening instead at an OP table, I'd be less excited. If this or any other hypothetical rules situation were to arise, does a GM get to have the ultimate answer of "Frack it, we're doing it my way so deal with it." </p>
<p>Or must an OP GM assuage any and all rules issues whenever they come up?</p>
<p>(not to derail the actual rules argument.. as I said I find it most informative in this context!) </blockquote><p>I believe that a GM _can_ say frak it. But that a <b>good</b> GM will be cognizant of the rules, and will use the rules in making his rulings.
<p>If I have an animal companion with Scent (or, if I have a Half-Orc PC with the Scent feat), I have every expectation of knowing when creatures come within 30' of me. </p>
<p>If I have a PC on guard duty, or in a dungeon crawl, or whereever, and I have informed the DM that my PC has Scent. I would be highly surprised, and not a little Pissed Off if the DM informed me that so-and-so creature had used stealth or invisibility and was able to get to me and mine without me having caught his scent.</p>
<p>And yes, I would expect that any enemies with scent can do the same to me. </p>
<p>What the discussion on the board is, is an opportunity to educate oneself about how rules that aren't often used might actually work. </p>
<p>Not a lot of people think about scent. So not a lot of people are familiar with the rules. A question gets asked. People look up the rules and talk about the rules. Sometimes people chime in with non-rule based "well not at my table" arguments, and while those are good to talk about, they lie outside of the rules, and into house-rules.</p>
<p>Generally in PFS, house rules are frowned upon, as players have a right to expect a uniform rule set in moving from one table to another with their character.</p>deusvult wrote:I do love reading the thoughts back and forth on the forum, and indeed learning a thing or two about the rules in the process.. so many thanks to those who put in their two bits and helped teach me stuff I didn't know that I didn't know about scent.
The forum is the right place to have this sort of discussion. However were this to be happening instead at an OP table, I'd be less excited. If this or any other hypothetical rules situation were to arise, does a GM get to have the...Fozzy Hammer (alias of crmanriq)2011-09-02T14:53:39ZRe: Pathfinder Society GM Discussion: Scent vs Invisibility: Feeling out the authority of a PFS GMFozzy Hammer (alias of crmanriq)http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2mso1?Scent-vs-Invisibility-Feeling-out-the#132011-09-02T14:32:21Z2011-09-02T14:32:21Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">LazarX wrote:</div><blockquote> If scent were automatic there would be no need for scent based perception checks. In the case mentioned above the scent based perception check would take no DC riders for invisibility. </blockquote><p>Then if sight were automatic (someone walking in plain sight within 30 being automatically seen), there would be no sight based perception checks.
<p>But there are.</p>
<p>Quote a rule. Or your argument is just babble.</p>LazarX wrote:If scent were automatic there would be no need for scent based perception checks. In the case mentioned above the scent based perception check would take no DC riders for invisibility.
Then if sight were automatic (someone walking in plain sight within 30 being automatically seen), there would be no sight based perception checks. But there are.
Quote a rule. Or your argument is just babble.Fozzy Hammer (alias of crmanriq)2011-09-02T14:32:21ZRe: Pathfinder Society GM Discussion: Scent vs Invisibility: Feeling out the authority of a PFS GMFozzy Hammer (alias of crmanriq)http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2mso1?Scent-vs-Invisibility-Feeling-out-the#102011-09-02T12:38:32Z2011-09-02T12:38:32Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">heretic wrote:</div><blockquote> <div class="messageboard-quotee">Andrew Christian wrote:</div><blockquote><p> I disagree with your interpretations of Scent.</p>
<p>It is not automatic.</p>
<p>the operative word in the quote of the rules is "can".</p>
<p>The same way I "can" see something 1,000 feet away in a low light situation.</p>
<p>They still need to make a perception check.</p>
<p>In this case, the OP is correct, the +20 to stealth would not apply, and the +8 racial bonus to perception would, because Scent can easily "observe" someone within 30' (or modified based on wind condition.) </blockquote><p>My initial reaction was that the OP had hit the nail on the head. I was sure there was a DC connected with using scent. Then after checking the rules I see that the DC relates to using Scent with Survival Skill to track a crearure by smell.
<p>Scent itself allows a creature to be aware of a creature's presence within certain ranges depending on how strong the smell is but not be aware of location until within 5 feet.</p>
<p>The question that springs to mind is there any way to magically mask scent. 20 years ago I remember slipping past the king's guards at a Euro GenCon using a cantrip to totally clean my body and gear so to remove scent for a minute or two. Oddly it never really came up again. The current verion of that would be Prestigigitation perhaps but that would not work.</p>
<p>Any ideas on how to defeat those guard dogs mighty snouts either alchemically or magically?</p>
<p>W </blockquote><p>Level 1 druid spell - <a href="http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/advanced/spells/negateAroma.html#negate-aroma" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">Negate Aroma</a>heretic wrote:Andrew Christian wrote:I disagree with your interpretations of Scent.
It is not automatic.
the operative word in the quote of the rules is "can".
The same way I "can" see something 1,000 feet away in a low light situation.
They still need to make a perception check.
In this case, the OP is correct, the +20 to stealth would not apply, and the +8 racial bonus to perception would, because Scent can easily "observe" someone within 30' (or modified based on wind condition.)
My...Fozzy Hammer (alias of crmanriq)2011-09-02T12:38:32ZRe: Pathfinder Society GM Discussion: Scent vs Invisibility: Feeling out the authority of a PFS GMFozzy Hammer (alias of crmanriq)http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2mso1?Scent-vs-Invisibility-Feeling-out-the#92011-09-02T12:37:09Z2011-09-02T12:37:09Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">Andrew Christian wrote:</div><blockquote><p> I disagree with your interpretations of Scent.</p>
<p>It is not automatic.</p>
<p>the operative word in the quote of the rules is "can".</p>
<p>The same way I "can" see something 1,000 feet away in a low light situation.</p>
<p>They still need to make a perception check.</p>
<p>In this case, the OP is correct, the +20 to stealth would not apply, and the +8 racial bonus to perception would, because Scent can easily "observe" someone within 30' (or modified based on wind condition.) </blockquote><p>The perception DC to "Notice a visible creature" is 0. The modifier for perception due to distance is +1 per 10 feet. So a creature 1000 feet away has a perception DC of 100. Low light adds +2 to this DC.
<p>The scent ability makes creatures within 30' "visible" to the perceiving creature. Even if you apply the same modifier for distance, the perception DC to "see" a creature with scent at 30 feet is only 3.</p>Andrew Christian wrote:I disagree with your interpretations of Scent.
It is not automatic.
the operative word in the quote of the rules is "can".
The same way I "can" see something 1,000 feet away in a low light situation.
They still need to make a perception check.
In this case, the OP is correct, the +20 to stealth would not apply, and the +8 racial bonus to perception would, because Scent can easily "observe" someone within 30' (or modified based on wind condition.)
The perception DC...Fozzy Hammer (alias of crmanriq)2011-09-02T12:37:09ZRe: Pathfinder Society®: General Discussion: Ban the "Wild Rager" archtype, and do it quickFozzy Hammer (alias of crmanriq)http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2mrut&page=4?Ban-the-Wild-Rager-archtype-and-do-it-quick#1742011-09-02T04:25:24Z2011-09-02T04:25:24Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">Sir_Wulf wrote:</div><blockquote><p> I have never had to tell a PFS player that they weren't welcome at a table, but I reserve the right to do so. Over the years, I have advised several players that their behavior was causing problems within the game and requested that they address the issue. I have helped draft notices reminding people to maintain appropriate behavior within a store or other public venue. I have politely escorted offensive people from game store or convention center premises when they caused problems.</p>
<p>If someone deliberately or heedlessly messes with other people's characters, they will be firmly directed to change their behavior. If they don't, they will be told to find some other place to game. </p>
<p>They can snivel all they want about "that's my build" and "the rules say I have to go berserk", but I can tell a jerk player when I encounter one. </blockquote><p>Yep. If you are GM, you can boot a problem player from your table. Totally within your rights.
<div class="messageboard-quotee">PFS GUIDE 4.0 wrote:</div><blockquote><p>Extreme forms of dysfunctional play
</p>
will not be tolerated.
<br />
...Playing your character is not an
<br />
excuse for childish behavior.
<br />
...Extreme or repetitive cases should be resolved
<br />
by asking the offender to leave the table.
<br />
</blockquote><p>Sir_Wulf wrote:I have never had to tell a PFS player that they weren't welcome at a table, but I reserve the right to do so. Over the years, I have advised several players that their behavior was causing problems within the game and requested that they address the issue. I have helped draft notices reminding people to maintain appropriate behavior within a store or other public venue. I have politely escorted offensive people from game store or convention center premises when they caused...Fozzy Hammer (alias of crmanriq)2011-09-02T04:25:24ZRe: Pathfinder Society GM Discussion: Scent vs Invisibility: Feeling out the authority of a PFS GMFozzy Hammer (alias of crmanriq)http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2mso1?Scent-vs-Invisibility-Feeling-out-the#32011-09-02T04:05:33Z2011-09-02T04:05:33Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">Dragnmoon wrote:</div><blockquote><p> I think you are confused how Scent works..</p>
<p>There is no perception check involved with scent.</p>
<div class="messageboard-quotee">Scent wrote:</div><blockquote>A creature with the scent ability can detect opponents by sense of smell, generally within 30 feet. If the opponent is upwind, the range is 60 feet. If it is downwind, the range is 15 feet.</blockquote><p>The creature with scent knows there is something there as soon as they are within range.
<div class="messageboard-quotee">Scent wrote:</div><blockquote>The creature detects another creature’s presence but not its specific location. Noting the direction of the scent is a move action.</blockquote><p>With a Move action they know the direction.
<div class="messageboard-quotee">Scent wrote:</div><blockquote>If the creature moves within 5 feet (1 square) of the scent’s source, the creature can pinpoint the area that the source occupies, even if it cannot be seen.</blockquote>Once within 5 feet (1 square) they know exactly what they smell is and can attack, though the penalties of being invisible still apply, full concealment (and thus a 50% miss chance). </blockquote><p>You forgot the most important point in the whole rules outline:
<div class="messageboard-quotee">PRD - Stealth wrote:</div><blockquote>If people are observing you using any of their senses (but typically sight), you can't use Stealth.</blockquote><p>The hound has Scent. With Scent, the hound observes anyone within 30' automatically. A creature under observation cannot use stealth. It is not hidden to the hound.Dragnmoon wrote:I think you are confused how Scent works..
There is no perception check involved with scent.
Scent wrote:A creature with the scent ability can detect opponents by sense of smell, generally within 30 feet. If the opponent is upwind, the range is 60 feet. If it is downwind, the range is 15 feet.
The creature with scent knows there is something there as soon as they are within range. Scent wrote:The creature detects another creature’s presence but not its specific location....Fozzy Hammer (alias of crmanriq)2011-09-02T04:05:33ZRe: Pathfinder Society®: General Discussion: Faction T-ShirtsFozzy Hammer (alias of crmanriq)http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2kob5?Faction-TShirts#222011-09-01T20:38:29Z2011-09-01T20:38:29Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">teribithia9 wrote:</div><blockquote> <div class="messageboard-quotee">kensai13 wrote:</div><blockquote><p> [
</p>
Whoa whoa whoa! Are you serious? My girlfriend and I went to the Paizo booth at Gencon to buy reroll shirts. When picking which shirt we wanted we asked the guy Identified as the "customer service manager" which shirts allowed rerolls and he said any of the official Paizo shirts. I asked if he was sure the goblin shirt was included and he said absolutely. I can't remember his name, but he was very memorable. He had a big curly old timey mustache.</p>
<p>Please don't tell me we spent like $50 on 2 goblin shirts and the guy was full of it? I like the shirts, but a shirt wasn't all I was purchasing. </blockquote><p>The only 6 shirts that currently grant re-rolls are the ones listed in the organized play guide. That's the faction shirts for the original 5 factions and the year of the ruby phoenix shirt.
<p>EDIT: but if I was running you in We Be Goblins and you were wearing a goblin shirt...you might be able to convince me to give you a re-roll. it only seems fair... </blockquote><p>Maybe if the player sings one of the goblin songs from memory. Loudly. Proudly. In a goblin voice!teribithia9 wrote:kensai13 wrote:[
Whoa whoa whoa! Are you serious? My girlfriend and I went to the Paizo booth at Gencon to buy reroll shirts. When picking which shirt we wanted we asked the guy Identified as the "customer service manager" which shirts allowed rerolls and he said any of the official Paizo shirts. I asked if he was sure the goblin shirt was included and he said absolutely. I can't remember his name, but he was very memorable. He had a big curly old timey mustache.Please...Fozzy Hammer (alias of crmanriq)2011-09-01T20:38:29ZRe: Pathfinder Society®: General Discussion: Upgrading Named Magic Armor/Weapons in PFS?Fozzy Hammer (alias of crmanriq)http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2mqjs&page=2?Upgrading-Named-Magic-ArmorWeapons-in-PFS#752011-09-01T20:30:12Z2011-09-01T20:30:12Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">sieylianna wrote:</div><blockquote> <div class="messageboard-quotee">Fozzy Hammer wrote:</div><blockquote> 2 Competence Bonus on all Charisma based checks = 400 x #of checks. Bluff, Diplomacy, Disguise, Handle... </blockquote>Except the circlet of persuasion provides a +3 competence bonus to all Charisma related checks for 4,500 gold. So even though it's shifting a slot, I think 6,000 is too high. </blockquote><p>So if we price +3 for all checks at 4500, then using the bonus squared rule, the cost for the ability is Bonus Squared x 500; This means that a +2 to all CHA checks would cost 2000. Multiplying by 1.5 (multiple abilities in the same item) we get a cost of 3000gp. Which takes my calculated total from 23K down to 20K. Still pretty close to the 21050gp that I came up with using my "method".
<p>Oops.</p>
<p>It's lower still. It's 3000 instead of 9000. So we're down to 17K, leaving 4050 unaccounted for.</p>
<p>I'm still thinking I undercosted that Aura. 360' Bonus to saves vs. fear. Pretty large.</p>sieylianna wrote:Fozzy Hammer wrote: 2 Competence Bonus on all Charisma based checks = 400 x #of checks. Bluff, Diplomacy, Disguise, Handle...
Except the circlet of persuasion provides a +3 competence bonus to all Charisma related checks for 4,500 gold. So even though it's shifting a slot, I think 6,000 is too high. So if we price +3 for all checks at 4500, then using the bonus squared rule, the cost for the ability is Bonus Squared x 500; This means that a +2 to all CHA checks would cost...Fozzy Hammer (alias of crmanriq)2011-09-01T20:30:12ZRe: Pathfinder Society GM Discussion: Concerns about Ultimate CombatFozzy Hammer (alias of crmanriq)http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2mqfu?Concerns-about-Ultimate-Combat#472011-09-01T20:25:07Z2011-09-01T20:25:07Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">Alexander_Damocles wrote:</div><blockquote> <div class="messageboard-quotee">Fozzy Hammer wrote:</div><blockquote> <div class="messageboard-quotee">Alexander_Damocles wrote:</div><blockquote> <div class="messageboard-quotee">Emmeline Kestler wrote:</div><blockquote> <div class="messageboard-quotee">Michael Brock wrote:</div><blockquote><br />
<br />
I'm against having a firearm be an arcane bond. The potential abuse is pretty high. </blockquote><p>To a certain extent, the crafting rules keep it in check. If you wanted a Greater Reliable double musket, you're looking at needing to reach a CL of 12th (ie not in PFS play). If you're going for straight enhancement without any big CL enchantments (which isn't delivering benefits as you're hitting on touch AC anyhow and with clustered shot DR isn't a worry), the player can effectively save something like 20,000+ gold.
</p>
</blockquote>The problem isnt the enhancements...its starting with a 4,300 gp item. Something that would normally take a character until aproximately level 4 to buy. </blockquote><p>Which leads to the root problem of having mundane weapons priced at &gt;4000gp.
<p>The decision was made to make guns rare, but given free to one class at character creation. it's inevitable that a one-level dip would get used by other classes to gain that high cost item.</p>
<p>I'm not sure what the solution is, but crafting additional specific rules around the guns seems like it will only lead to more problems down the road. </blockquote>To be entirely honest, I ran a gunslinger the first day the playtest went live. I've puttered about with the mechanics. And I would be perfectly fine if they decided to cut guns from PFS. They've created a morass of rules that don't work to keep guns rare, they just confuse players. Either open up guns completely, get rid of the gunsmithing feat requirement, and let the archetypes that are built around guns be played, or take the guns out of the campaign entirely. This halfbaked measure isn't doing anyone any favors. </blockquote><p>I can agree to that, mostly.
<p>Since guns <i>are</i> now legal, pandora's box has already been opened. If they banned them now, they would essentially be banning a whole bunch of already created characters.</p>
<p>So the options are really:</p>
<p>1) Bite the bullet and accept that guns exist. Yes, some player characters might take single level dips into Gunslinger to gain advantage. Yes, Arcane Bond gets wonky. Does any of this seriously threaten the campaign? I personally do not think it does. I think that if you don't like guns in Golarion, you will continue to not like guns in Golarion. I think that if you do like them, you get to continue to like them. I haven't seen any truly broken builds, and even if those might crop up, FAQing a feat or two to a houserule will end up being easier than </p>
<p>2) Keep trying to kludge the entire system so that only certain folks get to have guns. If you go this route, every single character option that comes out ends up having to be vetted through the lens of "how do guns affect this?" "Does this allow a gun toter to somehow come up with another combination we haven't thought of?" </p>
<p>(Reminds me of the joke that Puritans lie awake at night, worried that someone, somewhere might be having fun.) </p>
<p>I personally don't play a gunslinger. I really don't get attracted to it, but that's just personal preference. I can see how some people might like it. And I think that giving players choices is generally a good thing. Even if those choices aren't ones that we might make for ourselves.</p>Alexander_Damocles wrote:Fozzy Hammer wrote: Alexander_Damocles wrote: Emmeline Kestler wrote: Michael Brock wrote:
I'm against having a firearm be an arcane bond. The potential abuse is pretty high.
To a certain extent, the crafting rules keep it in check. If you wanted a Greater Reliable double musket, you're looking at needing to reach a CL of 12th (ie not in PFS play). If you're going for straight enhancement without any big CL enchantments (which isn't delivering benefits as you're...Fozzy Hammer (alias of crmanriq)2011-09-01T20:25:07ZRe: Pathfinder Society®: General Discussion: Upgrading Named Magic Armor/Weapons in PFS?Fozzy Hammer (alias of crmanriq)http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2mqjs&page=2?Upgrading-Named-Magic-ArmorWeapons-in-PFS#732011-09-01T20:15:02Z2011-09-01T20:15:02Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">Lab_Rat wrote:</div><blockquote><p> This thread has moved slowly towards a general Pathfinder rules thread and away from the realm of PFS.</p>
<p>As a side note. I like the flat cost for named armor idea as it makes it easy for GM's to calculate upgrade costs for their players. </blockquote><p>Well, we still need actual rules text, either Campaign Rules, or PFRPG rules. Without either, all this is just suggestions.Lab_Rat wrote:This thread has moved slowly towards a general Pathfinder rules thread and away from the realm of PFS.
As a side note. I like the flat cost for named armor idea as it makes it easy for GM's to calculate upgrade costs for their players.
Well, we still need actual rules text, either Campaign Rules, or PFRPG rules. Without either, all this is just suggestions.Fozzy Hammer (alias of crmanriq)2011-09-01T20:15:02ZRe: Pathfinder Society®: General Discussion: What is the PFS stance (if any) on the One Shot Kill?Smurfy Hammer (alias of crmanriq)http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2mekq&page=5?What-is-the-PFS-stance-on-the-One-Shot-Kill#2142011-08-31T15:46:36Z2011-08-31T15:46:36Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">Jiggy wrote:</div><blockquote> <div class="messageboard-quotee">Fozzy Hammer wrote:</div><blockquote><p>Define "cheesy". </p>
<p>To some, sneak attack and rapid shot is cheesy. But there are a heckuva lot of rogues and rangers built around those mechanics. </p>
<p>What's cheesy to you, is fun to another.</p>
<p>I know a local player, plays archers almost all the time. He and his characters barely speak a word during the entire module. Every module he plays.</p>
<p>But you know what, he seems to get as much fun out of playing his shootshootshoot archer that I do playing my flamboyant scene stealing bard. </p>
<p>Everyone gets something different out of the game. Labeling the parts of the game that they happen to like as something "cheesy" just smacks of elitism to me. I'm not calling you elitist. But I'm saying that pronouncement seems that way to me. </blockquote><p>This. I'm sure there are a lot of people (like the good Mr. Jonquet) who aren't aware of how condescending those statements/sentiments can come across.
<p>For comparison, try taking all of your (Bob's) statements - kindly phrased though they are - and reverse them. Make them comments about how "concept-based" characters sometimes "trend toward" being underpowered and not contributing their fair share of keeping the party alive. Even keeping the same diplomatic tone you used, I wager it'd still rub you the wrong way. The nature of the comparison being made is that one thing is somehow inferior to the other.</p>
<p>Just as the wizard should respect the fighter's brawn and the fighter should respect the wizard's brains, so too should Mr. Concept respect Mr. Optimal's ability to keep him alive and Mr. Optimal should respect Mr. Concept's ability to make a good story. Isn't that the kind of teamwork that's central to the genre? </blockquote><p>Smurfy good post.
<p>Thanks.</p>Jiggy wrote:Fozzy Hammer wrote:Define "cheesy".
To some, sneak attack and rapid shot is cheesy. But there are a heckuva lot of rogues and rangers built around those mechanics.
What's cheesy to you, is fun to another.
I know a local player, plays archers almost all the time. He and his characters barely speak a word during the entire module. Every module he plays.
But you know what, he seems to get as much fun out of playing his shootshootshoot archer that I do playing my flamboyant scene...Smurfy Hammer (alias of crmanriq)2011-08-31T15:46:36ZRe: Pathfinder Society®: General Discussion: Faction SecrecySneaky Hammer (alias of crmanriq)http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2mquy?Faction-Secrecy#292011-08-24T15:56:52Z2011-08-24T15:56:52Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">hogarth wrote:</div><blockquote><p> Sometimes I have a Taldan PC who outright states that Taldor is awesome.</p>
<p>The most secret I play it is at a "Joe and I will take this book for safe keeping &mdash; wink wink, nudge nudge" sort of level.</p>
<p>At any rate, even if the other players don't know which faction you're in, having three players pipe up in unison "Are there any jeweled daggers in this room?" is a dead giveaway that some people are in a different faction. </blockquote><p>I myself have never, ever resorted to: "Hey everyone, I need to harvest to undead parts in order to research a poison, er Antidote to a Poison (yeah, that's the ticket). If anyone happens to want to help me harvest some undead parts, I in turn will be quite happy to not watch what you are doing when you need to pass a note. I will also be quite happy to help look for boks, jewelery, pottery, or the like. I'm not saying I work for any particular faction, but if such a task were somehow to accomplish itself, I would not be adverse to such an occurrence."
<p>Nope, never done that. Never. Ever.</p>hogarth wrote:Sometimes I have a Taldan PC who outright states that Taldor is awesome.
The most secret I play it is at a "Joe and I will take this book for safe keeping -- wink wink, nudge nudge" sort of level.
At any rate, even if the other players don't know which faction you're in, having three players pipe up in unison "Are there any jeweled daggers in this room?" is a dead giveaway that some people are in a different faction.
I myself have never, ever resorted to: "Hey everyone, I...Sneaky Hammer (alias of crmanriq)2011-08-24T15:56:52ZRe: Pathfinder Society®: General Discussion: Yet another item purchase question!Smurfy Hammer (alias of crmanriq)http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2mr0i?Yet-another-item-purchase-question#392011-08-24T15:44:52Z2011-08-24T15:44:52Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">Mark Garringer wrote:</div><blockquote> <div class="messageboard-quotee">Jiggy wrote:</div><blockquote>Um, they did.</blockquote>As frequently as this misconception pops up, I'd say there is room for improvement. </blockquote><p>And Smurfy Hammer declares victory and does a little dance.
<p>The "Rules Deserve Clarity" dance.</p>
<p>He dances quietly&bull;, hoping nobody is watching.</p>
<p>&bull; Note: The IRS and Securities and Exchange Commission have outlawed the "Rules Deserve Clarity" dance in all fifty states, the Virgin Islands, and Puerto Rico.</p>Mark Garringer wrote:Jiggy wrote:Um, they did.
As frequently as this misconception pops up, I'd say there is room for improvement. And Smurfy Hammer declares victory and does a little dance. The "Rules Deserve Clarity" dance.
He dances quietly*, hoping nobody is watching.
* Note: The IRS and Securities and Exchange Commission have outlawed the "Rules Deserve Clarity" dance in all fifty states, the Virgin Islands, and Puerto Rico.Smurfy Hammer (alias of crmanriq)2011-08-24T15:44:52ZRe: Pathfinder Society®: General Discussion: A question about magic armorSnarky Hammer (alias of crmanriq)http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2mr02&page=2?A-question-about-magic-armor#652011-08-24T13:52:25Z2011-08-24T13:51:11Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">Michael Griffin-Wade wrote:</div><blockquote> <div class="messageboard-quotee">Fozzy Hammer wrote:</div><blockquote> <div class="messageboard-quotee">Chris Mortika wrote:</div><blockquote> Just a note: I have not noticed any condescending tone in any of Michael's posts, nor Mark's. </blockquote>You mean like <div class="messageboard-quotee">Michael to James wrote:</div><blockquote>This is why people don't want to address you.</blockquote>? </blockquote><p>This is not condescending. I have seen a pattern of negative behavior, and I have commented on it. I have noticed that you have returned to that same pattern as well.
<p>You don't seem to be able to consider that the Venture Captains are here for assisting participants of PFS, and not here for abuse. </blockquote><p>Then stop providing abuse.
<p>People who are acting condescending often rationalize it by claiming that they are simply commenting on patterns of negative behavior.</p>
<p>"Really young man, I'm simply trying to help you..."</p>
<p>When I am condescending, I simply own up to it.</p>Michael Griffin-Wade wrote:Fozzy Hammer wrote: Chris Mortika wrote: Just a note: I have not noticed any condescending tone in any of Michael's posts, nor Mark's.
You mean like Michael to James wrote:This is why people don't want to address you.
? This is not condescending. I have seen a pattern of negative behavior, and I have commented on it. I have noticed that you have returned to that same pattern as well. You don't seem to be able to consider that the Venture Captains are here for...Snarky Hammer (alias of crmanriq)2011-08-24T13:51:11ZRe: Pathfinder Society®: General Discussion: Animal Training Revision NeededSmurfy Hammer (alias of crmanriq)http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2m2gy&page=6?Animal-Training-Revision-Needed#2692011-08-24T13:38:11Z2011-08-24T13:38:11Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">Snorter wrote:</div><blockquote> <div class="messageboard-quotee">Andrew Christian wrote:</div><blockquote> I think it takes much more work and can be much more fun and rewarding, to create a well rounded, or interesting character. This starts with the stats. If all you are doing is trying to optimize, then you start with the stats, and your mindset is set to build something awesome from a mechanical standpoint. But if you like to create a character instead of a page full of numbers, you create the personality and backstory first. Then try to fit the stats to that. In this case, a Druid based on handle animal would definitely have a higher charisma than a purely optimized handle animal druid might have.</blockquote><p>No he wouldn't; he'd have a higher Handle Animal skill.
</p>
That's the whole point.
<br />
Those who are dedicating their lives, investing in the skill that governs the training of animals, are being trumped by shysters, bunko artists and conmen amateurs who invested one token rank.</p>
<p>Your wolf/cat/bear/shark/wombat couldn't care less how much natural ability you have at dancing, telling stories or jokes.
<br />
They don't recognise what a snazzy dresser you are, or know that the girls at school loved the way you parted your hair.
<br />
They don't appreciate how well you strum a lute, or blow on the oboe.
<br />
They won't look down on you if you use the wrong fork, or if you don't use a fork at all.
<br />
If you try to sell them a pyramid scheme, they will simply ignore you.</p>
<p>What they will respond to, is how well you understand them, and how well you display the correct pack-leader behaviour, an ability that is described, in game, via the Handle Animal bonus, which is calculated as a factor of training (skill ranks), professional insider knowledge (class skill bonus), empathic bonding (the +4 bonus), traits, feats, and maybe, <i>maybe</i>, an proportionally insignificant minor modifier from Cha, tagged onto the end as an afterthought, simply because every skill needs to be based on one stat or other, so we may as well take pity on Cha and give it something to do.</p>
<p>What part of
<br />
<span class=messageboard-ooc>"Civilisation is</span>... </blockquote><p>Holy carp!
<p>That was awesome!</p>
<p>Even Smurfy!</p>Snorter wrote:Andrew Christian wrote: I think it takes much more work and can be much more fun and rewarding, to create a well rounded, or interesting character. This starts with the stats. If all you are doing is trying to optimize, then you start with the stats, and your mindset is set to build something awesome from a mechanical standpoint. But if you like to create a character instead of a page full of numbers, you create the personality and backstory first. Then try to fit the stats to...Smurfy Hammer (alias of crmanriq)2011-08-24T13:38:11ZRe: Pathfinder Society®: General Discussion: Animal Training Revision NeededSmurfy Hammer (alias of crmanriq)http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2m2gy&page=6?Animal-Training-Revision-Needed#2632011-08-24T05:59:22Z2011-08-24T05:59:22Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">Dragnmoon wrote:</div><blockquote> <div class="messageboard-quotee">Bob Jonquet wrote:</div><blockquote><br />
<br />
I think we all know what I meant. Do my quotes around re-skinned have any less meaning than the ones you put around misunderstanding? </blockquote>Re-skinning is my new head explosion! And me explaining why I put quotes around misunderstanding will just get me in trouble. ;) </blockquote><p>Are you saying that you are re-skinning his statement to be more technically correct?
<p>Smurfy!</p>Dragnmoon wrote:Bob Jonquet wrote:
I think we all know what I meant. Do my quotes around re-skinned have any less meaning than the ones you put around misunderstanding?
Re-skinning is my new head explosion! And me explaining why I put quotes around misunderstanding will just get me in trouble. ;) Are you saying that you are re-skinning his statement to be more technically correct? Smurfy!Smurfy Hammer (alias of crmanriq)2011-08-24T05:59:22ZRe: Pathfinder Society®: General Discussion: Gen Con additional Race Boon prizesSmurfy Hammer (alias of crmanriq)http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2mo1i&page=3?Gen-Con-additional-Race-Boon-prizes#1452011-08-23T18:19:58Z2011-08-23T18:19:58Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">Keldraen wrote:</div><blockquote> Getting a chance to win a reward is a perk for making the effort to be there. I &bull;do&bull; feel bad for folks (like Military personnel) who really can't make it there due to other obligations or things beyond their control, 'cause GenCon is a blast. </blockquote><p>Smurfy Hammer's head asplodes.
<p>(additional content self-removed in uncharacteristic show of restraint)</p>Keldraen wrote:Getting a chance to win a reward is a perk for making the effort to be there. I *do* feel bad for folks (like Military personnel) who really can't make it there due to other obligations or things beyond their control, 'cause GenCon is a blast.
Smurfy Hammer's head asplodes. (additional content self-removed in uncharacteristic show of restraint)Smurfy Hammer (alias of crmanriq)2011-08-23T18:19:58ZRe: Pathfinder Society®: General Discussion: Animal Training Revision NeededSnarky Hammer (alias of crmanriq)http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2m2gy&page=5?Animal-Training-Revision-Needed#2152011-08-23T17:36:25Z2011-08-23T17:36:25Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">james maissen wrote:</div><blockquote><br />
<br />
<p>This would avoid having to have a GM after a slot have to witness 6 d20 rolls for one PC, it would let those that have sufficient handle animal scores to train their animals to train them, and have a cost associated for those that do not.
<br />
</blockquote><p>'cause those six d20 rolls take, what, a total of 30 seconds of table time?
<p>I'm just sayin', yo. da.</p>
<p>(Snarky, this post was. Alias, have I. Warned, you were...)</p>james maissen wrote:This would avoid having to have a GM after a slot have to witness 6 d20 rolls for one PC, it would let those that have sufficient handle animal scores to train their animals to train them, and have a cost associated for those that do not.
'cause those six d20 rolls take, what, a total of 30 seconds of table time? I'm just sayin', yo. da.
(Snarky, this post was. Alias, have I. Warned, you were...)Snarky Hammer (alias of crmanriq)2011-08-23T17:36:25ZRe: Pathfinder Society®: General Discussion: Animal Training Revision NeededSnarky Hammer (alias of crmanriq)http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2m2gy&page=4?Animal-Training-Revision-Needed#1972011-08-22T20:13:31Z2011-08-22T20:13:31Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">Chris Kenney wrote:</div><blockquote><p> The big negative with Time Units, as I understand it, is that what they primarily ended up doing was limiting play. A character with no TU left in the current period was, for all intents and purposes, just as dead as one eaten by a dragon until the TU refreshed. </p>
<p>PFS works on a fundamental philosophy of encouraging play as often as possible. This is what the old "Play, Play, Play" doctrine really meant - an instruction to coordinators to do everything they could within the rules to find anyone who shows up a legal seat.</p>
<p>An LG-style Time system, then, seems to run counter to the fundamental philosophy of the campaign. </blockquote><p>I can buy that argument. I kind of wish that Play, Play Play still part of the campaign doctrine. (It doesn't appear in the latest edition of the Guide.) I'll pretend for now that it still exists, and somehow the core philosophy didn't disappear leaving behind a vacuum. (Yes, I realize that sounds snarky. That's me. Maybe I should grab the alias Snarky Hammer)
<p>So, assuming that we want players to play, you are right. TU's would limit that. So we're again back to what I see are three choices.</p>
<p>1) Undefined time between modules. Players can do as much as they want to in that period.</p>
<p>2) Defined time between modules. Players can only do what they could do in that time period.</p>
<p>3) Different ambiguous time periods depending on what class you happen to be in, or what you happen to want to do between modules.</p>
<p>Of the three choices, number three seems to me to be the least desirable, the most arbitrary, and the most prone to players feeling that their class might have been slighted.</p>
<p>Of the remaining two, I personally like having a defined time between modules. It eliminates the "infinite" possibility that leads to "brokenness". ("I can do X infinite times, and then Y happens, yea!")</p>Chris Kenney wrote:The big negative with Time Units, as I understand it, is that what they primarily ended up doing was limiting play. A character with no TU left in the current period was, for all intents and purposes, just as dead as one eaten by a dragon until the TU refreshed.
PFS works on a fundamental philosophy of encouraging play as often as possible. This is what the old "Play, Play, Play" doctrine really meant - an instruction to coordinators to do everything they could within the...Snarky Hammer (alias of crmanriq)2011-08-22T20:13:31ZRe: Rules Questions: Glorious Heat + Spark = Unlimited HealingBrother Elias (alias of crmanriq)http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2metv&page=3?Glorious-Heat-Spark-Unlimited-Healing#1202011-06-18T06:50:41Z2011-06-18T04:02:51Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">Aelryinth wrote:</div><blockquote><p> Fixing errors is not free. issuing errata costs time and money. Yes, it should be done, or at least 'officially patched' online. However, it comes down to spending money to fix a small problem people can patch over, or fixing money to make money.</p>
<p>Businessmen who like to stay in business and keep their people employed go with the latter.</p>
<p>As for the example above, note that a fire spell of 0 level, tossed out by a level 10 caster, is healing 5 hp/rd for the cost of a feat...and at RANGE, no less. With unlimited healing, resource management takes on a completely different tone, especially for melees where it is their main scarce resource. The only attrition becomes for the spellcasters, and the PC's will always enter every fight with full hit points.</p>
<p>It's a major game changer. Sure, it may be a fun change, and even thematic. But if that's so much fun, why don't you just spend a feat that allows a Paladin to heal a number of HP equal to her Lay on Hands burstin dice (ditto other clerics), essentially replicating the same thing for all characters? 1 to 9 hp/rd for all divine healers for a feat...which is exactly what this represents.</p>
<p>Unlimited healing is valuable, which is why it is priced so high, and why you have to burn resources to stay healthy. If you like to video game where healing is really fast, different play style, less realism, more action. </p>
<p>It's also a "Wolvering" style game, where you play where you can afford to get hit because you know there's ALWAYS healing available.</p>
<p>===Aelryinth </blockquote><p>So then I assume that wand of Cure Light Wounds or Infernal Healing is equally a game changer, as they also provide virtually unlimited out-of-combat healing - which is what we're really talking about. At level 5+, 2-5 hp for one character in a round is not going to keep the fighter or the rogue from dying to the BBEG. It's going to help him mop up later so that the 15 minute work day isn't the standard by which adventures are set.
<p>Again. It's a game balance opinion issue. Obviously somebody at Paizo felt that this was balanced when it went out the door. And now others at Paizo are disagreeing. </p>
<p>As I've stated in the thread, even if available, I would not take this feat/spell combination, as Craft Wand is probably a much more powerful feat at that level, and through the rest of the character's career. And it reduces cost of the Wand of CLW down to only 375gp, which at level 5+ soon becomes a trivial expense. And it opens up every other wand to cheap exploitation. Ant Haul, Protection from Evil, Unseen Servant, Lesser Restoration all become "Hey, reach into the haversack and grab desired wand as a move action. Command word out appropriate level 1 spell. Lather, rinse, repeat".</p>
<p>Re: your argument that "Businessmen who want to stay employed...", yep. That's why no company in the world has a warranty against defects. If you buy a new car and the engine has problems, well it's your problem, not Ford's. Oh. "Wait a minute. Strike that. Reverse it.".</p>
<p>Shoddy work is shoddy work. Instead of simply pressing on to release more shoddy work, repairs are often necessary.</p>Aelryinth wrote:Fixing errors is not free. issuing errata costs time and money. Yes, it should be done, or at least 'officially patched' online. However, it comes down to spending money to fix a small problem people can patch over, or fixing money to make money.
Businessmen who like to stay in business and keep their people employed go with the latter.
As for the example above, note that a fire spell of 0 level, tossed out by a level 10 caster, is healing 5 hp/rd for the cost of a...Brother Elias (alias of crmanriq)2011-06-18T04:02:51ZPathfinder Society®: General Discussion: Walking away from the tableBrother Elias (alias of crmanriq)http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2m2jp?Walking-away-from-the-table#12011-03-31T13:32:35Z2011-03-31T13:32:35Z<p>Rule zero is that the GM has the final say on the rules. That's a given. A player can either accept the GM's ruling, or walk away from the table. After two and a half years of playing in Pathfinder Society, I'm standing up and walking away.</p>
<p>I have a small blog read by almost nobody (not linked to, because I'm really not trying to drum up site traffic). I wrote a post for it a couple of weeks ago talking about my frustration with PFS, and how similar frustrations led me to walk away from LFR. Mainly the problems I have had centered on rules changing out from under players. And how whenever LFR or 4e would get a new program manager, that manager would immediately change the rules of the game to suit his vision of how the game or campaign should be. And that eventually, the fact of constant rules changes made it more and more difficult to keep interest in a character, because that character was not the same character that it was before each change. </p>
<p>There were other issues, like how rules changes in LFR were coming out as blog posts and tweets, and not as actual changes to the document which is supposed to contain the rules of the campaign. I expressed in my post my hope that Paizo was not walking down that same path. </p>
<p>Somehow Hyrum happened to read the post, and said something like “hey, let's discuss it”. And as timing is never good in my life, this week I happen to be out of town on business all this week. And I said, something like “How about when I get back in town?” and he said something like “Sounds good”. But then this week happened.</p>
<p>My first PFS character (who still has not hit the level 11/12 cap) started as a Druid. When Season 1 hit, I asked Joshua specifically about the rule where an animal companion with a 3 INT could take any feat. And I specifically asked about weapon proficiency feats. And I got an answer. And in the next printing of the Guide to Organized Play, there was a specific section dealing with and answering that question, that yes – animal companions with a 3 INT that can physically wield a weapon can take weapon proficiency feats. That section has been in the Guide for over a year and a half, and through multiple editions of the guide.</p>
<p>Yesterday, Mark made the statement that “the author” (not referring to Josh by name, which might be a Paizo thing, but really ended up sounding more like a slam) made a mistake on that ruling. He didn't say that he disagreed, and was changing the rule, which would have seemed to me like a much more civil way to phrase things, but that simply that the author made a mistake. A mistake that went un-contradicted by anyone at Paizo for somewhere like a year and a half. </p>
<p>This week, we also saw another major rules change. It is a rules change because for a long time (almost two years), the standard answer on the rules forum about animal companions was that handle animal checks can effectively be ignored if you invest a point of intelligence in your animal companion. This would seem to be supported by the rules that open up every feat and every skill in the book to an animal companion with a 3 INT, whereas 2 INT critters are limited to just a few skills and feats. The advice on the rules forum went un-contradicted by anyone at Paizo for a similarly long time period.</p>
<p>Anyway.</p>
<p>This week, with these two rulings, my 8th level cleric (nee druid) with an ape animal companion who wields a weapon (who was specifically discussed in rules threads on both the rules forum and the PFS forum after he showed up at a local gaming convention, and who no-one at Paizo stepped up then to remark that he was not legal) has suddenly become an illegal build.</p>
<p>And the reaction from the “usual crowd” was pure schadenfreude. Supposedly I, and anyone else who saw the versatility of such a build should have known better, even though I specifically asked and was specifically answered by the Paizo manager in charge of the program, that such a build was borderline, and it was only right and just that I be smacked down. </p>
<p>Anyway.</p>
<p>I've got a choice. I can either keep playing a character that is effectively castrated, and play my other characters, at least one of which was somewhat hit by ruling as well, or...I can simply stand up and walk away from the table. I'm choosing to do the latter.</p>
<p>I've spent a fair amount of money on the game. I have the Core rules, both Bestiaries, the APG, the GMG, the Inner Sea Guide (which I just got last weekend). I bought the complete Legacy of Fire adventure path. I've bought several (or a bunch depending on how you number it) of PDF's. </p>
<p>But I will not be spending any more of my money at Paizo.</p>
<p>I will go to DriveThruRPG or Amazon or somewhere else. I'm left with the distinct feeling that my money and my custom are not appreciated, and that perhaps it would have been money better spent elsewhere. </p>
<p>I'm trying not to say this in a spirit of pettiness, I've seen enough of that on these boards from players and VC's alike. I'm trying to say it in the spirit of “my gaming dollars are going to go somewhere, and I'm choosing to spend them someplace that is not and has not caused me so much frustration of late.”</p>
<p>Wishing everyone all the best with their game.</p>Rule zero is that the GM has the final say on the rules. That's a given. A player can either accept the GM's ruling, or walk away from the table. After two and a half years of playing in Pathfinder Society, I'm standing up and walking away.
I have a small blog read by almost nobody (not linked to, because I'm really not trying to drum up site traffic). I wrote a post for it a couple of weeks ago talking about my frustration with PFS, and how similar frustrations led me to walk away from LFR....Brother Elias (alias of crmanriq)2011-03-31T13:32:35ZRe: Pathfinder Society®: General Discussion: Halfling Cavalier on a Stegosaurus in PFSBrother Elias (alias of crmanriq)http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2lvsk&page=2?Halfling-Cavalier-on-a-Stegosaurus-in-PFS#582011-02-22T04:04:24Z2011-02-22T04:04:24Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">James Risner wrote:</div><blockquote> <div class="messageboard-quotee">Brother Elias wrote:</div><blockquote> There is no wording that restricts the effective druid level to character level. </blockquote><p>No idea what you are talking about. Well, I have an idea.
<p>I think you are taking "Character Level" (a well known defined game term) and interpreting it as "class level."</p>
<p>If you are a 5 th level character (1st druid/4th fighter) and you take Boon Companion, then you have a 5th level AC. If you are a 5th level Druid and you take it, you still have a 5 th level AC (no bonus.) If you are a 20 th level character with 19 levels of fighter and 1 level of druid, you have a 5 th level AC.</p>
<div class="messageboard-quotee">Brother Elias wrote:</div><blockquote> Though I have looked very hard for such, I have never seen any rules text which states this. Do you have a cite, or are you simply making this up? </blockquote><p>There is no rule allowing for it, and since Boon Companion is the only "AC Boosting" effect I know and it explicitly limits to your Character Level, there is no Paizo written way to get a 20 th level AC at 19 th Character Level.
<div class="messageboard-quotee">Brother Elias wrote:</div><blockquote> Not as printed. As printed it gives a level bonus equal to the character level, up to a max of +4. </blockquote><p>Oh I see. You got it flipped around. I'm not sure how.
<p>It grants a static bonus of 4, which is capped at whatever is required to take it to your character level. </blockquote><p>Just read the feat. Quote the feat. Don't just spout off on what you think the feat says or doesn't say. It's quoted in the thread. NOt hard to read. Small words even.
<p>None of it says what you think it says. It says something else entirely, for which the author of the feat apologized for the crappy wording, as the wording has no relationship to the actual "intent" of the feat. </p>
<p>Just RTFF.</p>
<p>Leaving the messageboards for a while now. Too many people who spout off as authorities on rules without bothering to actually quote the rules.</p>James Risner wrote:Brother Elias wrote: There is no wording that restricts the effective druid level to character level.
No idea what you are talking about. Well, I have an idea. I think you are taking "Character Level" (a well known defined game term) and interpreting it as "class level."
If you are a 5 th level character (1st druid/4th fighter) and you take Boon Companion, then you have a 5th level AC. If you are a 5th level Druid and you take it, you still have a 5 th level AC (no...Brother Elias (alias of crmanriq)2011-02-22T04:04:24ZRe: Pathfinder Society®: General Discussion: Halfling Cavalier on a Stegosaurus in PFSBrother Elias (alias of crmanriq)http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2lvsk&page=2?Halfling-Cavalier-on-a-Stegosaurus-in-PFS#552011-02-22T03:12:06Z2011-02-22T03:12:06Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">Dragnmoon wrote:</div><blockquote> I don't expect to ever see an Actual fix to the feat since it is not in a PF RPG book, since they only Errata when they do reprints, and the only book that happened for that was not a PF RPG book was the Adventurer's Armory, and the Errata did not even make it into the book because of a Mistake! </blockquote><p>Yeah I know. Doesn't make me any happier to know, but yeah - I know.Dragnmoon wrote:I don't expect to ever see an Actual fix to the feat since it is not in a PF RPG book, since they only Errata when they do reprints, and the only book that happened for that was not a PF RPG book was the Adventurer's Armory, and the Errata did not even make it into the book because of a Mistake!
Yeah I know. Doesn't make me any happier to know, but yeah - I know.Brother Elias (alias of crmanriq)2011-02-22T03:12:06ZRe: Pathfinder Society®: General Discussion: Halfling Cavalier on a Stegosaurus in PFSBrother Elias (alias of crmanriq)http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2lvsk&page=2?Halfling-Cavalier-on-a-Stegosaurus-in-PFS#522011-02-22T02:44:37Z2011-02-22T02:44:37Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">Enevhar Aldarion wrote:</div><blockquote> but the Druid description says the animal companion has as many hit dice as the druid has class levels.</blockquote><p>Um. No.
</p>
Animal companions start at 2HD for 1st level druids, and progress up to 16HD for 20th level druids.</p>
<div class="messageboard-quotee">Enevhar Aldarion wrote:</div><blockquote> Boon Companion gives the animal companion a level bonus equal to the difference between druid level and total character level up to a max of +4. </blockquote><p>Not as printed. As printed it gives a level bonus equal to the character level, up to a max of +4.
<p>It's bad enough that the rules are using awful horrible terrible wording that doesn't mean what they actually state. Please. Please. Do not simply make up rules and claim that they are in core. If you can find them in the core, and can quote them, I'll gladly bow to superior rule-search fu. But I've been playing a Pathfinder Druid since season 0, and I've been looking hard for the rules to actually mean what they say.</p>
<p>As I said, the characters that I have that use boon companion are not using the rule as written. They use the 3.5 version, which did cap at character level. The boon companion feat as written has no such cap. (I wish that it did, because then it would mean that I would be playing by the actual rules, instead of trying to kludge together a semi-consistent rule set by reading tea leaves, casting bones, and examining troll entrails to ascertain what the designers might possibly mean in the absence of something resembling errata or FAQ.)</p>Enevhar Aldarion wrote:but the Druid description says the animal companion has as many hit dice as the druid has class levels.
Um. No.
Animal companions start at 2HD for 1st level druids, and progress up to 16HD for 20th level druids. Enevhar Aldarion wrote:Boon Companion gives the animal companion a level bonus equal to the difference between druid level and total character level up to a max of +4.
Not as printed. As printed it gives a level bonus equal to the character level, up to a max...Brother Elias (alias of crmanriq)2011-02-22T02:44:37ZRe: Pathfinder Society®: General Discussion: Armor for a PigBrother Elias (alias of crmanriq)http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2lwml?Armor-for-a-Pig#52011-02-22T02:19:11Z2011-02-22T02:19:11Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">JeremyK wrote:</div><blockquote><p> Hey guys,</p>
<p>One of my players in our weekly PFS game wants to purchase some armor for her boar animal companion. I'm not sure what, if any resource this is in (its on the srd http://www.d20pfsrd.com/equipment&mdash;-final/armor) and if its legal.</p>
<p>Anyone mind clearing this up for us? Is it doable and if so, how does it work?</p>
<p>Thanks,</p>
<p>Jeremy </blockquote><p>There are two ways you can approach this.
<p>1) Buy armor for your pig that has a zero Armor Check Penalty. As long as there is no penalty, you don't have to worry about proficiency. (I have a large ape that has no proficiency with armor, but wears a mithral shirt.)</p>
<p>2) Take the armor proficiency feats in order to not worry about Armor Check penalty. (I have a bear animal companion whose two feats are Light and Medium Armor Proficiency.)</p>JeremyK wrote:Hey guys,
One of my players in our weekly PFS game wants to purchase some armor for her boar animal companion. I'm not sure what, if any resource this is in (its on the srd http://www.d20pfsrd.com/equipment---final/armor) and if its legal.
Anyone mind clearing this up for us? Is it doable and if so, how does it work?
Thanks,
Jeremy
There are two ways you can approach this. 1) Buy armor for your pig that has a zero Armor Check Penalty. As long as there is no penalty, you...Brother Elias (alias of crmanriq)2011-02-22T02:19:11ZRe: Pathfinder Society®: General Discussion: Halfling Cavalier on a Stegosaurus in PFSBrother Elias (alias of crmanriq)http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2lvsk?Halfling-Cavalier-on-a-Stegosaurus-in-PFS#502011-02-22T02:13:18Z2011-02-22T02:13:18Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">Enevhar Aldarion wrote:</div><blockquote> The animal companion can also never be a higher level than your total character level. </blockquote><p>Though I have looked very hard for such, I have never seen any rules text which states this. Do you have a cite, or are you simply making this up?Enevhar Aldarion wrote:The animal companion can also never be a higher level than your total character level.
Though I have looked very hard for such, I have never seen any rules text which states this. Do you have a cite, or are you simply making this up?Brother Elias (alias of crmanriq)2011-02-22T02:13:18ZRe: Pathfinder Society®: General Discussion: Halfling Cavalier on a Stegosaurus in PFSBrother Elias (alias of crmanriq)http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2lvsk?Halfling-Cavalier-on-a-Stegosaurus-in-PFS#492011-02-22T02:10:26Z2011-02-22T02:10:26Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">TwilightKnight wrote:</div><blockquote> <div class="messageboard-quotee">Brother Elias wrote:</div><blockquote>I'm not certain that it's possible to take Boon Companion twice.</blockquote>Yes, you can. It is written in the text. Hmmm, Cavalier/Cleric of Gozreh with the Animal and Growth domains... </blockquote><p>oh. duh. And I posted the text above... &lt;going back to hitting myself in the head with a hammer...&gt;TwilightKnight wrote:Brother Elias wrote:I'm not certain that it's possible to take Boon Companion twice.
Yes, you can. It is written in the text. Hmmm, Cavalier/Cleric of Gozreh with the Animal and Growth domains... oh. duh. And I posted the text above...Brother Elias (alias of crmanriq)2011-02-22T02:10:26ZRe: Pathfinder Society®: General Discussion: Halfling Cavalier on a Stegosaurus in PFSBrother Elias (alias of crmanriq)http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2lvsk?Halfling-Cavalier-on-a-Stegosaurus-in-PFS#422011-02-21T21:23:03Z2011-02-21T21:23:03Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">Omega Man wrote:</div><blockquote> <div class="messageboard-quotee">Brother Elias wrote:</div><blockquote><br />
<br />
Not specifically a PFS issue, but I think that it is <b>clear that the RAI</b> was that the animal companion's level is capped by your character level. Anything else, seems broken.</p>
<p>From the feat itself, there's no way to divine intent. I agree that as written, the feat is broken. Which is why I refer to it as horribly worded. And why I put forth my own interpretation of what I felt would be a better writing of the feat, if that is the intent. As the feat has never received errata, of inclusion in a FAQ, it's difficult to discern exactly what the intent was. </blockquote><p>Please ref this conversation on the Paizo forums.
<p>http://paizo.com/paizo/messageboards/paizoPublishing/pathfinder/pathfinderR PG/rules/archives/boonCompanionDruid&amp;page=1&amp;source=search#0</p>
<p>[sorry - seems this doesn't work. do a search for 'Boon Companion, druid' &amp; look for Russ Taylor's post. Seems he's the author of the Boon Companion feat]</p>
<p>About a quarter of the way down the page, the author of the Boon Companion feat chimes in with the following comment...</p>
<p>Here's the authority: it caps at your character level.
<br />
So a 6th level druid / 2nd level bard can have an 8th level companion.
<br />
Wrote the feat, sorry about the strange wording.
<br />
</blockquote><p>[noticing that you left out his smug wording about how we are all supposed to know exactly what he meant, however he might have worded it...]
<p>Yes, I agree with you. If one is willing to wade through thousands of random messageboard posts, one might actually find a short 23 word clarification of the rule buried somewhere by the original author of the feat.</p>
<p>However, if one actually looks at the published material, one has only the actual words used to determine intent. </p>
<p>[hangs head in chastisement, and walks penitently away...]</p>Omega Man wrote:Brother Elias wrote:
Not specifically a PFS issue, but I think that it is clear that the RAI was that the animal companion's level is capped by your character level. Anything else, seems broken.From the feat itself, there's no way to divine intent. I agree that as written, the feat is broken. Which is why I refer to it as horribly worded. And why I put forth my own interpretation of what I felt would be a better writing of the feat, if that is the intent. As the feat has...Brother Elias (alias of crmanriq)2011-02-21T21:23:03ZRe: Pathfinder Society®: General Discussion: Halfling Cavalier on a Stegosaurus in PFSBrother Elias (alias of crmanriq)http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2lvsk?Halfling-Cavalier-on-a-Stegosaurus-in-PFS#392011-02-21T20:57:17Z2011-02-21T20:57:17Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">TwilightKnight wrote:</div><blockquote> <div class="messageboard-quotee">Brother Elias wrote:</div><blockquote>Stuff</blockquote><p>Not specifically a PFS issue, but I think that it is <b>clear that the RAI</b> was that the animal companion's level is capped by your character level. Anything else, seems broken.
<div class="messageboard-quotee">Daniel Moyer wrote:</div><blockquote>but you would then have 2 animals, both somewhat ineffective</blockquote>Not sure if they would be considered ineffective, but the PFS guidelines do state that no matter how many companions you have, only one can be designated as a combatant for a given mod. So if you were a Druid-4/cavalier-4 with Boon Companion twice, you would have to designate which one would be actively participating in the mod. Although, depending on the environment of the mod, this could help alleviate the problem of having an ineffective mount. Select two different types of creatures and use the one that is more applicable. You would be an 8th level character with two, eighth level companions. </blockquote><p>From the feat itself, there's no way to divine intent. I agree that as written, the feat is broken. Which is why I refer to it as horribly worded. And why I put forth my own interpretation of what I felt would be a better writing of the feat, if that is the intent. As the feat has never received errata, of inclusion in a FAQ, it's difficult to discern exactly what the intent was.
<p>I'm not certain that it's possible to take Boon Companion twice. Nothing in the feat description states that it may be taken twice, and the general rule is that you may only take a feat once. Hmm. Looking at the PRD, I don't see any rule stating that you cannot take a feat twice. &lt;shaking head..., thinking about what doubly taken feats would be broken. Skill focus? Weapon Focus? Boon companion as a Druid1/Something8?&gt;</p>TwilightKnight wrote:Brother Elias wrote:Stuff
Not specifically a PFS issue, but I think that it is clear that the RAI was that the animal companion's level is capped by your character level. Anything else, seems broken. Daniel Moyer wrote:but you would then have 2 animals, both somewhat ineffective
Not sure if they would be considered ineffective, but the PFS guidelines do state that no matter how many companions you have, only one can be designated as a combatant for a given mod. So if...Brother Elias (alias of crmanriq)2011-02-21T20:57:17ZRe: Pathfinder Society®: General Discussion: Full Attacks and Downed Characters, Part 2Brother Elias (alias of crmanriq)http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2lwk9?Full-Attacks-and-Downed-Characters-Part-2#42011-02-21T15:25:39Z2011-02-21T15:25:39Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">WelbyBumpus wrote:</div><blockquote><p> Hey, all. I had a similar question to one posted in another thread, and thought it better to make a new thread of it.</p>
<p>The situation is: there is one PC within threat range of a BBEG, and the BBEG has three attacks. With the first hit, the PC is still standing, but barely. With the second hit, the PC is dropped deep into negative hps. You have a third attack left, and using it against your only available target (the downed PC) will definitely kill the PC. Do you have the BBEG take the attack?</p>
<p>I say yes. I anticipate that most DMs would also say yes. But some DMs and players would consider this needlessly cruel or vindictive. Thoughts? </blockquote><p>Yes.
<p>I have long maintained that any adventure in which your character does not stand a real chance of dying is merely a grind. This means that characters in bad situations die. It reminds players that playing smart is important. (If you are in trouble, then you need to do something about it - now.)</p>
<p>I've had characters die.</p>
<p>I've also had fights where the entire group pulled out of a room, knowing that they couldn't win the fight that was going on at the time, and that leaving, and coming back later was much better than dying.</p>
<p>As I said on the other thread. One of the operative words in BBEG is EVIL. That monster, or boss, or demon, or whatever does not care about playing fair. And you don't get to be the BBEG by disregarding the fact that fallen fighters sometimes get up. Or sometimes they are playing dead. </p>
<p>There is no such thing as a "fair fight". Anyone who thinks there is, is wrong. </p>
<p>As a side point. How often do adventuring parties leave unconscious monsters and go adventuring elsewhere? </p>
<p>Paladin: "well, we've shown the ancient red dragon who the boss is. Let's leave him to lick his wounds and ponder changing careers. To kill him now just wouldn't be fair." &lt;dusts off hands&gt;</p>
<p>Rogue: "Forget that! I want some dragonhide boots!" &lt;slice slice&gt;</p>WelbyBumpus wrote:Hey, all. I had a similar question to one posted in another thread, and thought it better to make a new thread of it.
The situation is: there is one PC within threat range of a BBEG, and the BBEG has three attacks. With the first hit, the PC is still standing, but barely. With the second hit, the PC is dropped deep into negative hps. You have a third attack left, and using it against your only available target (the downed PC) will definitely kill the PC. Do you have the...Brother Elias (alias of crmanriq)2011-02-21T15:25:39ZRe: Pathfinder Society®: General Discussion: Full Attacks and Downed CharactersBrother Elias (alias of crmanriq)http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2lwja?Full-Attacks-and-Downed-Characters#102011-02-21T13:42:23Z2011-02-21T13:42:23Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">Brom'mash of Taldor wrote:</div><blockquote><p> I know I saw a similar thread a couple months ago but, what is the general attitude towards this situation?</p>
<p>Here's the situation:</p>
<p>BBEG is surrounded by three PCs and an animal companion. One character is very hurt the others are moderately hurt. This is tier 8-9.</p>
<p>The BBEG's turn comes. He has a claw/claw/bite attack routine.</p>
<p>Judge: Claw #1 hit AC XX for YY damage.</p>
<p>Very hurt character: Okay, I'm down.</p>
<p>Judge: Claw #2 hit AC XX for YY damage.</p>
<p>Very hurt character: Um, okay. I'm more down.</p>
<p>Judge: Bite hit AC XX for YY damage.</p>
<p>Very hurt character: ...okay. I'm more down.</p>
<p>The very hurt character is obviously very dead. He is level 6. The others are 7, 8 and 8.</p>
<p>Has anyone else experienced a judge that ran their game like this? What would you do in this situation? Would you play with this judge again? </blockquote><p>Hmm. a few questions.
<p>1) Previous to this particular point in time, had the DM been splitting attacks? Or were all iterative attacks generally against the same target? (I personally tend to roll all my iterative attacks at the same throw with multiple D20's, against one opponent, whether I'm playing a PC or as DM.)</p>
<p>2) From your description, you had a very hurt character who also happened to be somewhat out-of-subtier in melee against the BBEG. Given that it was the BBEG's swings, had that character had any opportunity to withdraw from melee on his own turn? If so, then why was he still in the fight? In fact, if you had 2 other PC's and an animal companion surrounding the BBEG, then why wasn't the lower level character protected by the party? </p>
<p>3) Did the very hurt lower level PC happen to be the owner of the animal companion? I know many DM's who will specifically target an animal companion's owner, especially with any monster that is intelligent or wise enough to evaluate the situation. In taking out the AC's owner, you also take out the AC. It's the much more efficient attack.</p>
<p>4) The party level is 29/4=7.25. This places you in the capability of playing either 5-6, or 8-9. The chances of player death while playing up are considerably higher than playing down. Did any conversation take place at the table about this possibility?</p>
<p>5) Given that the lowest player at the table was the one who died, did anyone offer to contribute to his Raise Dead? Or did the table just leave him hanging? If nobody at the table contributed, then I guess my question about the situation would be, if it were you, would you play with this group again? </p>
<p>General comments:</p>
<p>A) The monsters are trying to kill you. If they aren't then you are simply grinding through levels. You might as well be gold farming, or whatever.</p>
<p>B) If the tactics that you use leave you open to dying (being the lowest level character, very injured, and still in melee), then complaining about dying seems petty.</p>
<p>C) I recently had a character go from full hit points to fully dead in one iterative attack, while staying at the back of the party trying to stay out of melee. (BBEG came from behind and took me down.) I had an animal companion, and the best strategy for the BBEG was to take me out to take my formidable AC out as well. Given the 8-9 tier, I could pay for the Raise Dead from my treasure and still have a couple of gp left. (No, nobody offered to kick in. I accept that convention play is like that. At store play, I've kicked in on one player's raise dead.) I don't fault the DM for playing BBEG's as big and bad and EVIL. </p>
<p>D) As I said before, I generally roll my iterative attacks all at once against a single opponent. I wouldn't fault anyone else for doing so. If the DM was rolling separate attacks and splitting them previously, and for this one attack sequence deliberately kept hitting you after you were down, then I would ask the DM privately what might have sparked a change in his normal behavior.</p>Brom'mash of Taldor wrote:I know I saw a similar thread a couple months ago but, what is the general attitude towards this situation?
Here's the situation:
BBEG is surrounded by three PCs and an animal companion. One character is very hurt the others are moderately hurt. This is tier 8-9.
The BBEG's turn comes. He has a claw/claw/bite attack routine.
Judge: Claw #1 hit AC XX for YY damage.
Very hurt character: Okay, I'm down.
Judge: Claw #2 hit AC XX for YY damage.
Very hurt character:...Brother Elias (alias of crmanriq)2011-02-21T13:42:23ZRe: Pathfinder Society®: General Discussion: Halfling Cavalier on a Stegosaurus in PFSBrother Elias (alias of crmanriq)http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2lvsk?Halfling-Cavalier-on-a-Stegosaurus-in-PFS#362011-02-21T04:12:08Z2011-02-21T04:12:08Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">Daniel Moyer wrote:</div><blockquote> <div class="messageboard-quotee">James Risner wrote:</div><blockquote>Can't you just be a 1st level Druid, take Boon Companion (it works on Druids?) and have a 5th level Mount?</blockquote><p>Boon Companion and it's 3.5 predecessor, Natural Bond, only provide a benefit up to your character level, but not exceeding it. Boon Companion is up to 4 levels, Natural Bond was only up to 3.
<p>The benefit of the feat is primarily for multiclass druids, paladins or cavaliers and rangers who want to remove the -3 restriction. Boon Companion also works on Familiars, but not on Eidolons as written. </blockquote><p>Well... due to the horribly bad wording of Boon Companion, this is not strictly true.
<div class="messageboard-quotee">Feat wrote:</div><blockquote><p>Boon CompanionP
</p>
Source Seekers of Secrets 16</p>
<p>Your bond with your animal companion or familiar is unusually close.</p>
<p>Prerequisites: Animal companion or familiar class ability.</p>
<p>Benefit: The abilities of your animal companion or familiar are calculated as though your class were four levels higher, <b>to a maximum bonus equal to your character level</b>. If you have more than one animal companion or familiar, choose one to receive this benefit. If you lose or dismiss an animal companion or familiar, you may apply this feat to the replacement creature.</p>
<p>Special: You may select this feat more than once. The effects do not stack. Each time you take the feat, it applies to a different animal companion or familiar.</blockquote><p>The operative phrase, "to a maximum bonus" indicate that a 1st level druid would gain a 1 level bonus (thereby having an animal companion as if 2nd level). A 2nd level druid would gain a 2 level bonus (thereby having an animal companion as if 3rd level). According to the actual wording of the feat, a druid (or other character) of 4th level or higher would gain a 4 level bonus. There is no wording that restricts the effective druid level to character level.
<p>That said - I do not take any bonus that would gain me an effective druid level higher than my character level for any of my characters for whom I have taken boon companion. I do this for the simple reason that while the feat is horribly worded, and has yet to see any errata, most DM's generally view the feat as if it were the 3.5 version, which did carry that restriction. There's some old thread here on the boards where one of the developers said that they viewed it as that as well, regardless of the actual wording.</p>
<p>A much better wording of the feat would be:</p>
<p>Benefit: The abilities of your animal companion or familiar are calculated as though your effective level in the appropriate class (druid in the case of animal companion, or wizard in the case of familiar) were four levels higher, to a maximum effective level equal to your character level. If you have more than one animal companion or familiar, choose one to receive this benefit. If you lose or dismiss an animal companion or familiar, you may apply this feat to the replacement creature.</p>Daniel Moyer wrote:James Risner wrote:Can't you just be a 1st level Druid, take Boon Companion (it works on Druids?) and have a 5th level Mount?
Boon Companion and it's 3.5 predecessor, Natural Bond, only provide a benefit up to your character level, but not exceeding it. Boon Companion is up to 4 levels, Natural Bond was only up to 3. The benefit of the feat is primarily for multiclass druids, paladins or cavaliers and rangers who want to remove the -3 restriction. Boon Companion also works...Brother Elias (alias of crmanriq)2011-02-21T04:12:08ZRe: Suggestions/House Rules/Homebrew: LinguisticsBrother Elias (alias of crmanriq)http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2l228?Linguistics#442011-02-19T05:45:04Z2011-02-19T05:45:04Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">cranewings wrote:</div><blockquote><p> The Pathfinder world is a very pluralistic world. Even more so than the heart of Europe where people regularly speak 3 or 4 languages. I'll admit, here in the states I've had very little need or interest in learning another language, but if I grew up with more people speaking a variety of languages, I could have picked one or two up.</p>
<p>If you grew up learning a couple of languages, and were thrust into a world where knowing another language could mean the difference between life and death, poverty and wealth, I bet you would be motivated to try really hard... and if you had a knack for it developed in childhood, I bet you could.</p>
<p>I seriously don't think that one skill point is excessive, especially considering that to be emulative, a lot of level one peasants with only half a dozen skill points half to be able to speak three or four languages. A skill point represents a HUGE investment in time. </blockquote><p>I went to high school in Mexico, at an international school populated mainly by kids of diplomats and foreign corporate transferees.
<p>I had several friends who had traveled so much growing up that they already know six or more languages, and picking up Spanish to the point of being able to converse took a matter of a few weeks for them. </p>
<p>When you know French, Italian, and Portuguese, another language with similar roots isn't that big of a deal. (And the speaker of Swedish, Norwegian, English, German and a couple others also picked it up just about as quickly.)</p>
<p>Of course, I've met my fair share of native English speakers whom I wouldn't consider proficient in the language. On both sides of the Atlantic.</p>cranewings wrote:The Pathfinder world is a very pluralistic world. Even more so than the heart of Europe where people regularly speak 3 or 4 languages. I'll admit, here in the states I've had very little need or interest in learning another language, but if I grew up with more people speaking a variety of languages, I could have picked one or two up.
If you grew up learning a couple of languages, and were thrust into a world where knowing another language could mean the difference between...Brother Elias (alias of crmanriq)2011-02-19T05:45:04ZRe: Rules Questions: Druid animal companion and potionsBrother Elias (alias of crmanriq)http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2lvty?Druid-animal-companion-and-potions#192011-02-18T13:34:16Z2011-02-18T13:34:16Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">John Kretzer wrote:</div><blockquote><p> It does not say animals can't have int above 2...it says unless specificaly stated in the animal description there is a limit of two. So it is possible for a animal companion to be one of those animals with a higher int. That is why having rules say it what to do if a animal int score above three in regards to skills and feats is not to me atleast proff that all animal companions can get increased int.</p>
<p>That is where my position was. Before reading James Jaccob answear to the question....which states the intent...and yes than you guys are right and I am wrong. </p>
<p>Though Iwould still like to ask this directly of Pazio but can't figure out how... </blockquote><p>Interestingly, Hyrum himself asked about this very topic several months ago (while he was still at Super Genius Games).
<p>http://paizo.com/paizo/messageboards/paizoPublishing/pathfinder/pathfinderR PG/rules/animalCompanionsAndAnIntOf3</p>
<p>Seeing as no official answer came of it, perhaps now, he's in a position to answer his own question.</p>John Kretzer wrote:It does not say animals can't have int above 2...it says unless specificaly stated in the animal description there is a limit of two. So it is possible for a animal companion to be one of those animals with a higher int. That is why having rules say it what to do if a animal int score above three in regards to skills and feats is not to me atleast proff that all animal companions can get increased int.
That is where my position was. Before reading James Jaccob answear to...Brother Elias (alias of crmanriq)2011-02-18T13:34:16ZRe: Pathfinder Campaign Setting: General Discussion: Paizo Blog: Golarion Day: Subdomains for Everyone!Brother Elias (alias of crmanriq)http://paizo.com/paizo/blog/v5748dyo5lbwn?Golarion-Day-Subdomains-for-Everyone#462011-02-17T19:34:12Z2011-02-17T19:34:12Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">James Jacobs wrote:</div><blockquote> <div class="messageboard-quotee">Brother Elias wrote:</div><blockquote><p>I have a PFS character (ex-druid cleric) that worships Zarongel. It might be nice to know his subdomains.</p>
<p>Thanks! </blockquote>Zarongel: Ash, Exploration, Fur, Smoke </blockquote><p>Awesome. Thanks.IJames Jacobs wrote:Brother Elias wrote:I have a PFS character (ex-druid cleric) that worships Zarongel. It might be nice to know his subdomains.
Thanks!
Zarongel: Ash, Exploration, Fur, Smoke Awesome. Thanks.IBrother Elias (alias of crmanriq)2011-02-17T19:34:12ZRe: Pathfinder Campaign Setting: General Discussion: Paizo Blog: Golarion Day: Subdomains for Everyone!Brother Elias (alias of crmanriq)http://paizo.com/paizo/blog/v5748dyo5lbwn?Golarion-Day-Subdomains-for-Everyone#442011-02-17T19:23:05Z2011-02-17T19:23:05Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">James Jacobs wrote:</div><blockquote> <div class="messageboard-quotee">MaxAstro wrote:</div><blockquote> Having just read through Lost Cities of Golarion, I would love to know Nurgal's subdomains. Or Nuuru'gal's. Either one, really. :p </blockquote>Nurgal: Ash, Day, Demon, Smoke </blockquote><p>I have a PFS character (ex-druid cleric) that worships Zarongel. It might be nice to know his subdomains.
<p>Thanks!</p>James Jacobs wrote:MaxAstro wrote: Having just read through Lost Cities of Golarion, I would love to know Nurgal's subdomains. Or Nuuru'gal's. Either one, really. :p
Nurgal: Ash, Day, Demon, Smoke I have a PFS character (ex-druid cleric) that worships Zarongel. It might be nice to know his subdomains. Thanks!Brother Elias (alias of crmanriq)2011-02-17T19:23:05ZRe: Pathfinder Society®: General Discussion: Reporting ReplayBrother Elias (alias of crmanriq)http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2lvsb?Reporting-Replay#42011-02-16T19:52:18Z2011-02-16T19:52:18Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">Alizor wrote:</div><blockquote><p> Since I didn't want to derail the other thread, I noticed in <a href="http://paizo.com/paizo/messageboards/paizoPublishing/pathfinder/pathfinderSociety/general/replayRulesRearTheirUglyHeadAgain&amp;page=4#167" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">Hyrum's message</a> that faction PA / factions will matter more in the future. As he mentioned how replay skewed the data, is there a specific way in which we should be reporting replay?</p>
<p>I've currently been adding the character to the list as per normal, reporting that the person played, however I simply give 0 PA. Is this the correct method? Should they not be listed at all?</p>
<p>For Hyrum/Mark an example of replay is <a href="http://paizo.com/pathfinderSociety/events/v5748mkg09wpw" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">this event</a>, session 1, character 6399-5. Hoping that this is done correctly or if there's another way that it should be reported. </blockquote><p>I've been thinking about this whole "Factions matter" concept.
<p>Originally we were all told that "Factions Matter", and that there would be an accounting.</p>
<p>Then we were told that there would be no accounting, and that if one wanted to replay a scenario, one had to do so with a character in a different faction.</p>
<div class="messageboard-quotee">PSGOP wrote:</div><blockquote><p>• You may not replay a scenario with the same faction
</p>
that you played it with before.
<br />
• You may not replay a scenario with the same character
<br />
that you played it with before.</blockquote><p>And now we're again being told that "Factions Matter".
<p>Personally, I have multiple PFS characters who are only in their faction because of the replay rules as quoted in the PSGOP. </p>
<p>I would like to place those characters into the factions that I would have originally wanted them in, given that the replay rule has now changed to "Replay for no credit, but in any faction you want". </p>
<p>Is there a mechanism (or will there be) whereby I can re-faction my PFS characters? Or should I simply retire them if I do not want them contributing to whatever faction war might now be announced now that once again, "Factions Matter"?</p>
<p>And at the same time, is it too much to ask that rules be stable? There was a certain other RPG that I gave up on because every new product or campaign manager decided he wanted to redo the rules to match his vision of what the game should be. As a result, the rules ended up with hundreds of pages of errata, and it was impossible to actually play a character without the rules shifting out from under it. I'd really hate Paizo and PFS to wander down that path. </p>
<p>Yes, I'm being cantankerous today. Shifting ground tends to annoy me.</p>Alizor wrote:Since I didn't want to derail the other thread, I noticed in Hyrum's message that faction PA / factions will matter more in the future. As he mentioned how replay skewed the data, is there a specific way in which we should be reporting replay?
I've currently been adding the character to the list as per normal, reporting that the person played, however I simply give 0 PA. Is this the correct method? Should they not be listed at all?
For Hyrum/Mark an example of replay is this...Brother Elias (alias of crmanriq)2011-02-16T19:52:18ZRe: Rules Questions: Inspire Courage, Dancing and SilenceBrother Elias (alias of crmanriq)http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2lv6b?Inspire-Courage-Dancing-and-Silence#82011-02-12T21:54:30Z2011-02-12T21:54:30Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">Rickmeister wrote:</div><blockquote><p> Question 4:
</p>
Could you use "Perform (Fight)" to use some form of Kung-Fu style while fighting, thus inspiring your enemies?</p>
<p>(Probably not very useful, but i'm wondering :) ) </blockquote><p>I have a bard character who usually uses Perform(stage fighting) in a Council of Thieves campaign. He has a masterwork rapier that he uses to demonstrate superior swordsmanship to his allies. The sword has never actually touched an enemy.Rickmeister wrote:Question 4:
Could you use "Perform (Fight)" to use some form of Kung-Fu style while fighting, thus inspiring your enemies?(Probably not very useful, but i'm wondering :) )
I have a bard character who usually uses Perform(stage fighting) in a Council of Thieves campaign. He has a masterwork rapier that he uses to demonstrate superior swordsmanship to his allies. The sword has never actually touched an enemy.Brother Elias (alias of crmanriq)2011-02-12T21:54:30ZRe: Pathfinder Society®: General Discussion: Gunslingers in Organized PlayBrother Elias (alias of crmanriq)http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2lryj&page=4?Gunslingers-in-Organized-Play#1852011-02-12T19:08:53Z2011-02-12T19:08:53Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">bugleyman wrote:</div><blockquote><p> So, in summary:</p>
<p>Most "fantasy" settings don't include gunpowder. Some do. Paizo has decided Golarion does. Some of us (myself included) don't particularly care for that, but it's a matter of opinion, and not one that is in danger of killing the campaign any time soon.</p>
<p>Did I miss anything? </p>
<p></blockquote><p>Hmm. Absent actual evidence (say a survey of all known fantasy settings), I'd actually call it:
<p><b>Some "fantasy" settings include gunpowder. Some do not. Paizo has decided that Golarion does. Some people wish that it did not. Current playtest reports indicate that as built, the use of guns don't appear to endanger the campaign at this time.</b></p>bugleyman wrote:So, in summary:
Most "fantasy" settings don't include gunpowder. Some do. Paizo has decided Golarion does. Some of us (myself included) don't particularly care for that, but it's a matter of opinion, and not one that is in danger of killing the campaign any time soon.
Did I miss anything?
Hmm. Absent actual evidence (say a survey of all known fantasy settings), I'd actually call it: Some "fantasy" settings include gunpowder. Some do not. Paizo has decided that Golarion...Brother Elias (alias of crmanriq)2011-02-12T19:08:53ZRe: Pathfinder Society®: General Discussion: Gunslingers in Organized PlayBrother Elias (alias of crmanriq)http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2lryj&page=4?Gunslingers-in-Organized-Play#1792011-02-12T15:42:39Z2011-02-12T15:42:39Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">Callarek wrote:</div><blockquote> <div class="messageboard-quotee">Aubhel Reghorn wrote:</div><blockquote> <div class="messageboard-quotee">Brother Elias wrote:</div><blockquote><p>...
</p>
From my point of view, youre arguing that the game should be held to your notion of fantasy, regardless of the already published material. </blockquote><p>It's not just _my_ notion of fantasy. Fantasy was a well defined genre a long time before I ever discovered it. Like any genre it expanded and has fuzzy edges, but most of us know the difference between fantasy, old west, sci fi, etc., notwithstanding crossovers like dark tower etc. I think the crossovers have their place, but some of us want to play fantasy, not crossover.
<p>However, I also understand that there has to be some give and take. As others have mentioned it would be much more palatable if the guns were presented as early European or Asian matchlock, musket, or blunderbuss primitive technology rather than industrial revolution / American west. </blockquote><p>Ah, but it <i>is</i> your notion of fantasy. Fantasy has been defined, not all that well, for many years. Some fantasy includes guns, up to and including revolvers, machine guns and various other ways of causing loss of life and limb.
<p>And you <b>do</b> know that one of the major problems with the guns presented to us for the playtest is that they are, indeed, very early technology, rather than the type of gun used in the American west. These are single shot weapons, with significant (game-time) reload times, not the archetypical wild west 6 shooter.</p>
<p>Indeed, one of the issues that will hit the class, whatever name it finally ends up with, is making them balanced both with the single shot, full round reload weapon <b>and</b> the 6 shot revolver, and/or any of the various varieties of machine guns that could be created with the same technology as each of those weapons.</p>
<p>Right now, the gunslinger is on a par with a weak crossbowman. And by weak, I mean badly built, rather than even moderately optimized. And the crossbowman will still be a LOT cheaper to run, and do more damage earlier, than the gunslinger will. Cheaper to enchant, easier to... </blockquote><p>I agree with your post almost entirely. As presented, guns are somewhat of a hodgepodge between old and new. They are single shot, yet reload much much faster than a musket or other barrel loaded weapon. Given the british army used to use 3 shots per minute as a standard, a "realistic" reload time should be on the order of 3-4 rounds. Rifles took much longer (you needed to wrap the bullet in a leather patch to grab the rifling, which also made it harder to drive down the barrel) somewhere around 2 shots per minute, or 5 rounds of game time.
<p>Compare to a six shooter, or M1 or other semi-automatic weapon, which should conceivably be able to be fired somewhat accurately 2-3 times per round. Compare to a fully automatic weapon which might be fired somewhat less accurately 30 times in that six second round. </p>
<p>Somewhere in this whole mix the designers need to figure out where Golarian guns fit. For game terms, anything more than a full-round reload will be very hard to make playable as a class. At the same time, I'm guessing that anything more than 2-3 shots per round will seem to be much more powerful than other game mechanics.</p>Callarek wrote:Aubhel Reghorn wrote: Brother Elias wrote:...
From my point of view, youre arguing that the game should be held to your notion of fantasy, regardless of the already published material.
It's not just _my_ notion of fantasy. Fantasy was a well defined genre a long time before I ever discovered it. Like any genre it expanded and has fuzzy edges, but most of us know the difference between fantasy, old west, sci fi, etc., notwithstanding crossovers like dark tower etc. I think the...Brother Elias (alias of crmanriq)2011-02-12T15:42:39ZRe: Pathfinder Society®: General Discussion: Gunslingers in Organized PlayBrother Elias (alias of crmanriq)http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2lryj&page=4?Gunslingers-in-Organized-Play#1742011-02-12T03:52:48Z2011-02-12T03:52:48Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">Aubhel Reghorn wrote:</div><blockquote><p> Good example, I concede the "Day Job" argument is spurious. However it is still important to consider all the jobs you mentioned existed in medieval times, that's the important bit.
</p>
</blockquote><p>Why?
<p>The only reason that i can come up with is that it fits your conception of what a fantasy setting should be. If you were the game designer or creative director, that might be relevant. But neither of us is. The setting has existed for over two years now. </p>
<p>Really, given that the setting has always had guns, it should be a non issue. From my perspective, the only real class that might justifiably be arguedas not part of the setting is thesummoner class. But even then,it could be argued that summoner is just some exotic mage.</p>
<p>From my point of view, youre arguing that the game should be held to your notion of fantasy, regardless of the already published material.</p>Aubhel Reghorn wrote:Good example, I concede the "Day Job" argument is spurious. However it is still important to consider all the jobs you mentioned existed in medieval times, that's the important bit.
Why? The only reason that i can come up with is that it fits your conception of what a fantasy setting should be. If you were the game designer or creative director, that might be relevant. But neither of us is. The setting has existed for over two years now.
Really, given that the setting...Brother Elias (alias of crmanriq)2011-02-12T03:52:48ZRe: Pathfinder Society®: General Discussion: Gunslingers in Organized PlayBrother Elias (alias of crmanriq)http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2lryj&page=4?Gunslingers-in-Organized-Play#1652011-02-11T18:03:02Z2011-02-11T18:03:02Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">Aubhel Reghorn wrote:</div><blockquote><br />
<br />
<p>BTW, I actually was a "Cowboy", I worked as a paid ranch hand. Consider how you would feel if your day job were introduced into a game that is supposed to be an escape? </blockquote><p>Perhaps similar to a cop who sees that the game contains paladins and inquisitors. (I know a couple of these.)
<p>Perhaps similar to a priest or pastor who sees that the game contains clerics. (Met one or two of these.)</p>
<p>Perhaps similar to a locksmith, or private investigator who sees that the game contains rogues. (Know one of these - thrown in ex-burglar on that one.)</p>
<p>Perhaps similar to park service workers who see that the game contains rangers. (Not met any of these yet.)</p>
<p>Perhaps similar to a chemist or other scientist (look - that's me) who sees that the game contains alchemists.</p>
<p>Perhaps similar to any number of current or past servicemen (look - me here too) who sees that the game contains fighters, cavaliers and paladins.</p>Aubhel Reghorn wrote:BTW, I actually was a "Cowboy", I worked as a paid ranch hand. Consider how you would feel if your day job were introduced into a game that is supposed to be an escape?
Perhaps similar to a cop who sees that the game contains paladins and inquisitors. (I know a couple of these.) Perhaps similar to a priest or pastor who sees that the game contains clerics. (Met one or two of these.)
Perhaps similar to a locksmith, or private investigator who sees that the game contains...Brother Elias (alias of crmanriq)2011-02-11T18:03:02ZRe: Pathfinder Society®: General Discussion: Rival Faction Missions and SabotageBrother Elias (alias of crmanriq)http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2luu2?Rival-Faction-Missions-and-Sabotage#302011-02-10T18:59:53Z2011-02-10T18:59:53Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">Matthew Morris wrote:</div><blockquote><p> Ok, along those lines. Should a DM work to 'fix' an accidental sabotage?</p>
<p>Spoilers for Silent Tide
<br />
&bull;&bull; spoiler omitted &bull;&bull;</p>
<p>Now admittedly that was the first scenario, but it still sticks in my mind. </blockquote><p>Having had more than one mission requiring the procurement of one poison or another, I've generally fallen back on the line "so that my associates might research an antidote to this poison". Seems to usually work, even if there might be some "nudge, nudge, wink, wink - say no more." about it.Matthew Morris wrote:Ok, along those lines. Should a DM work to 'fix' an accidental sabotage?
Spoilers for Silent Tide
** spoiler omitted **
Now admittedly that was the first scenario, but it still sticks in my mind.
Having had more than one mission requiring the procurement of one poison or another, I've generally fallen back on the line "so that my associates might research an antidote to this poison". Seems to usually work, even if there might be some "nudge, nudge, wink, wink - say no...Brother Elias (alias of crmanriq)2011-02-10T18:59:53ZRe: Pathfinder Society®: General Discussion: Creating a Level X Character for a PFS Legal ModuleBrother Elias (alias of crmanriq)http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2luhq?Creating-a-Level-X-Character-for-a-PFS-Legal#222011-02-09T03:50:02Z2011-02-09T03:50:02Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">Dragnmoon wrote:</div><blockquote> <div class="messageboard-quotee">Brother Elias wrote:</div><blockquote> Stuff</blockquote><p>I am still confused..
<p>The rules for Adjusting Characters for the mod are as such</p>
<p>This character may have up to 33,000 gp in total wealth, with no single item worth more than 16,500 gp.</p>
<p>That is the rule, the other thing you quote has nothing to do with it... This is the rule for "Adjusting for the Module"</p>
<p>That is the rule for normal play, this is not normal play and is an adjustment to address that. </blockquote><p>This might seem obvious to you, but it isn't to me. Part of the reason that it is not obvious is that my 8th level character does not have sufficient TPA to purchase a 16,500 gp item per Table 11-2. So it would seem odd (and slightly less-than-fair) to me to show up at a table with an actual character who has leveled to 8th level, and have players with newly created characters sit down with better gear than I can purchase.
<p>Again. I'm asking what the rule actually means. Because what it says does not say that the "Always Available"/Table 11-2 rules do not apply. The rule as written simply appears to make an additional limitation on the character that any gear it has (within legal limits) can also cost no more than 16,500gp.</p>Dragnmoon wrote:Brother Elias wrote: Stuff
I am still confused.. The rules for Adjusting Characters for the mod are as such
This character may have up to 33,000 gp in total wealth, with no single item worth more than 16,500 gp.
That is the rule, the other thing you quote has nothing to do with it... This is the rule for "Adjusting for the Module"
That is the rule for normal play, this is not normal play and is an adjustment to address that. This might seem obvious to you, but it isn't to...Brother Elias (alias of crmanriq)2011-02-09T03:50:02ZRe: Pathfinder Society®: General Discussion: Creating a Level X Character for a PFS Legal ModuleBrother Elias (alias of crmanriq)http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2luhq?Creating-a-Level-X-Character-for-a-PFS-Legal#212011-02-09T03:46:33Z2011-02-09T03:46:33Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">Dragnmoon wrote:</div><blockquote> <div class="messageboard-quotee">Brother Elias wrote:</div><blockquote> Stuff</blockquote><p>I am still confused..
<p>The rules for Adjusting Characters for the mod are as such</p>
<p>This character may have up to 33,000 gp in total wealth, with no single item worth more than 16,500 gp.</p>
<p>That is the rule, the other thing you quote has nothing to do with it... This is the rule for "Adjusting for the Module"</p>
<p>That is the rule for normal play, this is not normal play and is an adjustment to address that. </blockquote><p>The "No single item worth more than 16,500 gp" does not say that table 11-2 does not apply. Even with table 11-2 applying, this could simply mean that a character cannot have +1 adamantine full plate, as (even though it is on the "always available" list, it would cost (15000+1500+1000) 17,500 gp and thus be over the 16,500 gp limit.
<p>So the question is. Does the "no single item" imply that Table 11-2 and "Beyond the gear noted above, your character is restricted to purchasing additional items from his accumulated chronicle sheets (see Chapter 9, Step 3), or through his PA with his faction (see Chapter 11). Weapons, armor, equipment, magic items and so on that are outside of these lists are not available for purchase at any time." do not apply, and that any allowed content item can be purchased, even though the character has no PA?</p>Dragnmoon wrote:Brother Elias wrote: Stuff
I am still confused.. The rules for Adjusting Characters for the mod are as such
This character may have up to 33,000 gp in total wealth, with no single item worth more than 16,500 gp.
That is the rule, the other thing you quote has nothing to do with it... This is the rule for "Adjusting for the Module"
That is the rule for normal play, this is not normal play and is an adjustment to address that. The "No single item worth more than 16,500 gp"...Brother Elias (alias of crmanriq)2011-02-09T03:46:33ZRe: Pathfinder Society®: General Discussion: Continual Flame - Does it end when the scenario ends?Brother Elias (alias of crmanriq)http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2luj5?Continual-Flame-Does-it-end-when-the#222011-02-09T03:33:39Z2011-02-09T03:33:39Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">0gre wrote:</div><blockquote> <div class="messageboard-quotee">WelbyBumpus wrote:</div><blockquote> &bull;Okay, I care a little bit, in that I increasingly see deeper darkness being used as an environmental effect to hinder PCs, and I find darkness effects entirely Not Fun in Pathfinder. </blockquote><p>Huge amount of hate for darkness/ deeper darkness in our local group. Just way over-done in PFS.
<p>If the group has the counter it's generally a trivial encounter and horribly weak. If they don't have the counter the encounter takes three times longer to run and is much nastier than it needs to be. Either way it's just not a fun encounter. </blockquote><p>Deeper Darkness has been especially irritating. Recent encounters I've been in have generally dealt with it through the use of the Scent special ability (Companion creatures), though this tends to leave the actual characters standing around with their thumbs up their bodkin.0gre wrote:WelbyBumpus wrote: *Okay, I care a little bit, in that I increasingly see deeper darkness being used as an environmental effect to hinder PCs, and I find darkness effects entirely Not Fun in Pathfinder.
Huge amount of hate for darkness/ deeper darkness in our local group. Just way over-done in PFS. If the group has the counter it's generally a trivial encounter and horribly weak. If they don't have the counter the encounter takes three times longer to run and is much nastier than...Brother Elias (alias of crmanriq)2011-02-09T03:33:39ZRe: Pathfinder Society®: General Discussion: Creating a Level X Character for a PFS Legal ModuleBrother Elias (alias of crmanriq)http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2luhq?Creating-a-Level-X-Character-for-a-PFS-Legal#182011-02-09T03:30:49Z2011-02-09T03:30:49Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">Dragnmoon wrote:</div><blockquote> <div class="messageboard-quotee">Brother Elias wrote:</div><blockquote><br />
<br />
<p>Can I ask for a clarification here?</p>
<p>With 0 PA, it would seem that (assuming a new character built for the campaign) the character would be limited to a +1 weapon, +1 armor, and virtually no other magic items. </p>
<p>Is this correct?</p>
<p>(I have no problem with the rule either way, I'm just trying to clarify what the rule is.)</p>
<p>Thanks! </blockquote><p>I am not sure I understand the question..
<p>This is the rule for Adjusted Character from the new rules for the Mod.</p>
<div class="messageboard-quotee">Quote:</div><blockquote>A player may also create an 8th-level version of an existing Pathfinder Society character for use in the module. This character may have up to 33,000 gp in total wealth, with no single item worth more than 16,500 gp. Such a character is considered to have no Prestige Award.</blockquote>I am assuming the No PA rule is so they can't use stuff from Chart 11-1 in the PFS guide. </blockquote><div class="messageboard-quotee">PSGOP wrote:</div><blockquote><p>Beyond the gear noted above, your character is restricted
</p>
to purchasing additional items from his accumulated
<br />
chronicle sheets (see Chapter 9, Step 3), or through his
<br />
PA with his faction (see Chapter 11). Weapons, armor,
<br />
equipment, magic items and so on that are outside of these
<br />
lists are not available for purchase at any time.</blockquote><p>Without PA, a character could have "Always Available" items, such as mithral or adamantine weapons or armor, but could not buy anything not "Always Available". (As Table 11-2 would still seem to apply.)Dragnmoon wrote:Brother Elias wrote:Can I ask for a clarification here?
With 0 PA, it would seem that (assuming a new character built for the campaign) the character would be limited to a +1 weapon, +1 armor, and virtually no other magic items.
Is this correct?
(I have no problem with the rule either way, I'm just trying to clarify what the rule is.)
Thanks!
I am not sure I understand the question.. This is the rule for Adjusted Character from the new rules for the Mod.
Quote:A player...Brother Elias (alias of crmanriq)2011-02-09T03:30:49ZRe: Pathfinder Society®: General Discussion: Continual Flame - Does it end when the scenario ends?Brother Elias (alias of crmanriq)http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2luj5?Continual-Flame-Does-it-end-when-the#202011-02-09T03:22:10Z2011-02-09T03:22:10Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">Joseph Caubo wrote:</div><blockquote> <div class="messageboard-quotee">TwilightKnight wrote:</div><blockquote> Honestly, I do not think there are many GM's that will deny you a permanent light source on your holy symbol. Considering we already have everburning torches, glowing weapons, and wayfinders with <i>Light</i> at will. I'm not a big fan of a lot of exceptions in the OP Guide, but this one does not seem to disrupt the game. Maybe it should be added to the next version. Adn don't forget, it can still get dispelled. Be careful if you grace one of Kyle's tables. Just sayin' ;-) </blockquote>I'm just paranoid of all those scenarios where someone is casting deeper darkness, ya know? I've been caught empty handed before and it was NOT pretty. </blockquote><p>Of course, that brings up the question as to whether Continual Flame is considered a 3rd level (cleric) spell or a 2nd level (wizard) spell for purposes of overriding Deeper Darkness, a 3rd level cleric spell.Joseph Caubo wrote:TwilightKnight wrote: Honestly, I do not think there are many GM's that will deny you a permanent light source on your holy symbol. Considering we already have everburning torches, glowing weapons, and wayfinders with Light at will. I'm not a big fan of a lot of exceptions in the OP Guide, but this one does not seem to disrupt the game. Maybe it should be added to the next version. Adn don't forget, it can still get dispelled. Be careful if you grace one of Kyle's tables....Brother Elias (alias of crmanriq)2011-02-09T03:22:10ZRe: Pathfinder Society®: General Discussion: Creating a Level X Character for a PFS Legal ModuleBrother Elias (alias of crmanriq)http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2luhq?Creating-a-Level-X-Character-for-a-PFS-Legal#162011-02-09T03:17:47Z2011-02-09T03:17:47Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">Mark Moreland wrote:</div><blockquote> <div class="messageboard-quotee">Kyle Baird wrote:</div><blockquote><p> How does one go about creating an appropriate level version of an existing character for a mid-to-high level PFS legal module such as Cult of the Ebon Destroyers?</p>
<p>Using CotED as an example:</p>
<p>I assume that I could use an existing level 10 character and go back to what they were like at level 8. How does this work if you don't have anything higher than level 6? How do you handle wealth and item access? </blockquote>We've updated the pdf to explain how to do so for an 8th level character. Wealth for an adjusted PC is based on page 399 of the Core Rulebook, with max cost per item set at 1/2 total wealth. An adjusted PC is assumed to have no PA, and uses only the wealth per level table to determine item access. </blockquote><p>Can I ask for a clarification here?
<p>With 0 PA, it would seem that (assuming a new character built for the campaign) the character would be limited to a +1 weapon, +1 armor, and virtually no other magic items. </p>
<p>Is this correct?</p>
<p>(I have no problem with the rule either way, I'm just trying to clarify what the rule is.)</p>
<p>Thanks!</p>Mark Moreland wrote:Kyle Baird wrote:How does one go about creating an appropriate level version of an existing character for a mid-to-high level PFS legal module such as Cult of the Ebon Destroyers?
Using CotED as an example:
I assume that I could use an existing level 10 character and go back to what they were like at level 8. How does this work if you don't have anything higher than level 6? How do you handle wealth and item access?
We've updated the pdf to explain how to do so for an...Brother Elias (alias of crmanriq)2011-02-09T03:17:47ZRe: Pathfinder Society®: General Discussion: Gunslingers in Organized PlayBrother Elias (alias of crmanriq)http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2lryj&page=4?Gunslingers-in-Organized-Play#1572011-02-08T13:26:05Z2011-02-08T13:26:05Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">Demoyn wrote:</div><blockquote> <div class="messageboard-quotee">Mok wrote:</div><blockquote><br />
<br />
If someone seriously complained about the presence of a gunslinger, ninja, or samurai at a PFS session I'd likely just laugh. If they walked away from the table I'd just feel sad for the poor person caring far too much about how other people have fun. </blockquote><p>Nobody cares how you have fun. We care how WE have fun. If you enjoy playing pretend cowboys and indians then we're ecstatic for you, we just ask that you do it in a game meant for cowboys an indians, not our sword and sorcery game, because sword and sorcery is how WE'RE trying to have fun.
<p>Now you may say, "but the fact that they put cowboys and indians in YOU'RE PFS game means that PFS IS intended to be a cowboys and indians game," and you'd be right. I guess that's really the problem here though, isn't it? That we've been wasting our time thinking we were in a sword and sorcery game when all along we were stuck with hidden cowboys and hidden indians all around us. </blockquote><p>I guess my first question is: Did you ever actually read the campaign setting? At all?
<p>Golarion is a very diverse world, containing everything from swords and sorcery to guns to robots with (for all we know) frickin laser beams. </p>
<p>None of this was "hidden" from you. It's been part of the same campaign world for over two years now. </p>
<p>It seems churlish to complain about the campaign including elements that have been part of the campaign setting since the very beginning.</p>Demoyn wrote:Mok wrote:
If someone seriously complained about the presence of a gunslinger, ninja, or samurai at a PFS session I'd likely just laugh. If they walked away from the table I'd just feel sad for the poor person caring far too much about how other people have fun.
Nobody cares how you have fun. We care how WE have fun. If you enjoy playing pretend cowboys and indians then we're ecstatic for you, we just ask that you do it in a game meant for cowboys an indians, not our sword and...Brother Elias (alias of crmanriq)2011-02-08T13:26:05ZRe: Pathfinder Society®: General Discussion: Clarifying the "Playing Up" RuleBrother Elias (alias of crmanriq)http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2l8tl&page=2?Clarifying-the-Playing-Up-Rule#812011-02-06T05:54:18Z2011-02-06T05:54:18Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">Callarek wrote:</div><blockquote> <div class="messageboard-quotee">Brother Elias wrote:</div><blockquote>So. Here's my proposal to you. Instead of arguing that you should be able to play up whenever you desire, perhaps you should instead be arguing that the calculate APL actually be a reflection of the strength of the party so that the APPROPRIATE level can be played.</blockquote><p>The problem is that pure level of the party is not really a true measure of the characters' power.
<p>Just as an example, in our local area, we have several different Fighter builds. Some of them are great at their job, and count as their level of higher for APL. Others, however, are barely competent at their job, and might not count as their level for ability, much less if they are the sole fighter in the party.</p>
<p>And it is not always easy to judge how "good" a build is, much less how well it will work in certain party compositions.</p>
<p>I have a Str 12 Fighter who, in the right party, is quite effective. But, in other parties, his low Str will cause him to be less than effective. My fighter is a tripping build, so if there is someone to deliver damage, he works well, but if he is the primary damage dealer, things will run slowly, if at all.</p>
<p>Again, your APL calculation, like the current one, only counts the number of PCs and their levels, not the effect of party mix, or build capability.</p>
<p>For your consideration:
<br />
Party of 7 level 4 Bards. APL 5 under the current rules, I think; APL 7 or 8 under your calculation, but, to be honest, a "good" Bard build is going to be great, as a support character. If you are relying on a party of all Bards to take down opponents, even 7 of them will take a long time to take it out.</p>
<p>In similar wise, a party consisting of all melee types, or all ranged types, will have their own issues.</p>
<p>YMMV </blockquote><p>Excellent point. Hmm. There's no perfect system. I just wonder if we put our heads together if we can't possibly figure out a not-perfect, but better system.Callarek wrote:Brother Elias wrote:So. Here's my proposal to you. Instead of arguing that you should be able to play up whenever you desire, perhaps you should instead be arguing that the calculate APL actually be a reflection of the strength of the party so that the APPROPRIATE level can be played.
The problem is that pure level of the party is not really a true measure of the characters' power. Just as an example, in our local area, we have several different Fighter builds. Some of them...Brother Elias (alias of crmanriq)2011-02-06T05:54:18ZRe: Rules Questions: Who controls secondary characters?Brother Elias (alias of crmanriq)http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2ltox?Who-controls-secondary-characters#222011-02-05T18:41:07Z2011-02-05T18:41:07Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">Ninten wrote:</div><blockquote><p> Remember that these things are not necessarily the same across the board. This is how I &bull;as a DM&bull; see it:</p>
<p>Eidolons: Eidolons are a special case in terms of player control, since they are equally an aspect of the PC and of that 'universal outsider'. More so than any other secondary character, the PC has complete and total control over their Eidolon (exactly as though it were their PC). The reasons for this are twofold; firstly, the Summoner depends so much on the Eidolon that it would be more fair to treat the actual Summoner as the 'pet' part of the class. Considering how easy it already is to disable an Eidolon and severely nerf the Summoner, "Charizard ignores you" is never acceptable. In terms of fluff, the Eidolon is immortal and tied to the Summoner- as long as the Summoner is alive, the Eidolon can't die. In this case, having your Eidolon do something blatantly suicidal to protect you is absolutely ok. He'll be better tomorrow. </p>
<p>Summon Monster X: The summoned monsters are outsiders from other planes, compelled by magic to aid the caster. Since the magic compels them, they should obey absolutely, as long as the action fits their (your) alignment. Since Summoned Monsters instantly return to their home plane at 0 HP, suicidal actions are generally ok.</p>
<p>Summon Nature's Ally X: Unlike Summoned Monsters, Nature's Allies are from the material plane, and so do not get to safely reform if terminally injured. Thus, sending your summoned bear to go find the landmines is an Evil act.</p>
<p>Animal Companions: Generally, you use the various 'tricks' your companion knows or Wild Empathy to get it to do what you want. It stands to figure that your companion wouldn't automatically perceive constructs or incorporeal creatures as 'threats', but you can always just command it to attack. In general, the DM should never keep your animal companion from serving in a COMBAT role because "it's just an animal".</p>
<p>Other things like Familiars and followers generally ought to be convinced or else pre-appraised of the situation. A... </blockquote><p>Your distinction between Summon Monster and Summon Natures Ally have no basis in the rules.
<div class="messageboard-quotee">PRD wrote:</div><blockquote><p>Conjuration - Each conjuration spell belongs to one of five subschools. Conjurations transport creatures from another plane of existence to your plane (calling); create objects or effects on the spot (creation); heal (healing);<b> bring manifestations of objects, creatures, or forms of energy to you (summoning)</b>; or transport creatures or objects over great distances (teleportation). Creatures you conjure usually—but not always—obey your commands.</p>
<p>Summoning: A summoning spell instantly brings a creature or object to a place you designate. When the spell ends or is dispelled, a summoned creature is instantly sent back to where it came from, but a summoned object is not sent back unless the spell description specifically indicates this. A summoned creature also goes away if it is killed or if its hit points drop to 0 or lower, <b>but it is not really dead</b>. It takes 24 hours for the creature to reform, during which time it can't be summoned again.
<br />
</blockquote><p>Thus no summoned being is actually subject to real death. They are all simply manifestations of creatures, which if "killed" will reform after 24 hours.
<p>Similarly, your description of the intimate bond between summoner and eidolon has no basis in the actual rules. They are not granted a telepathic connection. There is a rounds-per-day (equal to summoner level) sensory link that the summoner can activate as a standard action, beyond that, they both speak the same languages. Thus an eidolon outside of the summoners control (in a different room, for example) would be acting on volition, not that of the summoner. In this instance, it is a perfectly reasonable expectation that the DM might step in to act as its controller.</p>Ninten wrote:Remember that these things are not necessarily the same across the board. This is how I *as a DM* see it:
Eidolons: Eidolons are a special case in terms of player control, since they are equally an aspect of the PC and of that 'universal outsider'. More so than any other secondary character, the PC has complete and total control over their Eidolon (exactly as though it were their PC). The reasons for this are twofold; firstly, the Summoner depends so much on the Eidolon that it...Brother Elias (alias of crmanriq)2011-02-05T18:41:07ZRe: Pathfinder Society®: General Discussion: Playing Up: Gold Doesn't MatterBrother Elias (alias of crmanriq)http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2lttx&page=2?Playing-Up-Gold-Doesnt-Matter#602011-02-04T18:55:39Z2011-02-04T18:55:39Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">Joseph Caubo wrote:</div><blockquote> <div class="messageboard-quotee">Thod wrote:</div><blockquote><p> My appology if I doubted you - will have to look it up. Haven't seen one in play - but my groups I GM are mainly low level.
</p>
But it clearly shows why a huge level gap is a problem. And I'm not surpised about your experience as not being fun in these circumstances.</p>
<p>Thod </blockquote><p>No problem! I love my channeling cleric! 6d6, 9 times a day with a DC 19 will save (undead do not get bonuses to will, wish outsiders would too :P) at 7. At level 9 and onward, he will go straight Holy Vindicator and get his AC up to 35+ with full plate + Vindicator's Shield ability! :)
<p>/Come to think of it, using this EXACT build but a negative channeler would be SICK. 6d6 damage DC 19 for half at level 7 against all those scenarios with living folks would be BEASTLY. And you could take more extra channels since you wouldn't need to take the channel ability that allows you to deny smart undead channel resistance. </blockquote><p>Actually, Brother Elias (7th level) had a DC22 Will save to his negative channel.
<p>(1/2 level) = 3
<br />
(22 Cha) = 6
<br />
(Improved Channel Feat) = 2
<br />
(Sacred Conduit Trait) = 1</p>Joseph Caubo wrote:Thod wrote:My appology if I doubted you - will have to look it up. Haven't seen one in play - but my groups I GM are mainly low level.
But it clearly shows why a huge level gap is a problem. And I'm not surpised about your experience as not being fun in these circumstances.Thod
No problem! I love my channeling cleric! 6d6, 9 times a day with a DC 19 will save (undead do not get bonuses to will, wish outsiders would too :P) at 7. At level 9 and onward, he will go straight...Brother Elias (alias of crmanriq)2011-02-04T18:55:39ZRe: Pathfinder Society®: General Discussion: Clarifying the "Playing Up" RuleBrother Elias (alias of crmanriq)http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2l8tl&page=2?Clarifying-the-Playing-Up-Rule#762011-02-04T18:23:08Z2011-02-04T18:23:08Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">Jonathon Vining wrote:</div><blockquote> <div class="messageboard-quotee">Brother Elias wrote:</div><blockquote><p>(Total of all character levels)/4</p>
<p>Thus, by the same example</p>
<p>4 players at level 4 = APL 4
<br />
5 players at level 4 = (4 + 4 + 4 + 4 + 4)/4 = 20/4 = APL 5
<br />
6 players at level 4 = (6 x 4)/4 = APL 6
<br />
7 players at level 4 = (7 x 4) = APL 7 Thus indicating that the correct sub-tier for this group is probably the 6-7 range.</blockquote>That seems like a good idea on the surface. But what if 6 or 7 level 4s want to sit down at a tier 1-5? </blockquote><p>The same thing that happens now. They play upper subtier, but have a general idea that the module is probably not going to be as challenging for them as a 1-7 on high subtier would be.
<p>My proposal had nothing to do with rewriting modules, or reworking tiers. <b>It simply had to do with how the DM should calculate APL so that the party is place in a subtier most appropriate from those available in the module.</b></p>
<p>I'm even not suggesting any modification to the no playing up more than one sub-teir rule. I think that is a great way to make sure that lower level characters aren't placed entirely out of their depth.</p>Jonathon Vining wrote:Brother Elias wrote:(Total of all character levels)/4
Thus, by the same example
4 players at level 4 = APL 4
5 players at level 4 = (4 + 4 + 4 + 4 + 4)/4 = 20/4 = APL 5
6 players at level 4 = (6 x 4)/4 = APL 6
7 players at level 4 = (7 x 4) = APL 7 Thus indicating that the correct sub-tier for this group is probably the 6-7 range.
That seems like a good idea on the surface. But what if 6 or 7 level 4s want to sit down at a tier 1-5? The same thing that happens now....Brother Elias (alias of crmanriq)2011-02-04T18:23:08ZRe: Pathfinder Society®: General Discussion: Clarifying the "Playing Up" RuleBrother Elias (alias of crmanriq)http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2l8tl&page=2?Clarifying-the-Playing-Up-Rule#732011-02-04T13:57:02Z2011-02-04T13:57:02Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">Joseph Caubo wrote:</div><blockquote> <div class="messageboard-quotee">Doug Miles wrote:</div><blockquote><p> I think that many players want to 'play up' as a result of too many players at the table. Demand for PFS is high compared to the number of GMs available, at least in my area. When I play with 5 other players at the table, quite frankly I am bored. My contributions are less significant at a 6-player table than at a 4-player table. Often when there's a single opponent to face, he's going down within 10-12 player turns at a 6-player table. That means I get one or two chances to contribute and then we're out of initiative. The opponent only got to attack once or twice as well. It is no wonder that players feel they have to play up in order to have a challenge.</p>
<p>At a 4-player table, the opponent is going to get more turns as well, thus more chances to take out a PC. It is certainly more significant when a PC drops at a 4-player table than at a 6-player table. It is also more exciting. Suddenly the way I decide to make use of a Move action after casting a spell becomes much more important.</p>
<p>If you want to have more fun at the game, then try to play with three other players. Suddenly playing within-tier is a lot more interesting. </blockquote>I can't begin to count the ways I agree with this. PFS is growing so rapidly in my area, and we don't have enough GMs, especially who are prepped, to run games. I consistently run games for 6-7 people. And the thing is, I never want to turn folks away from playing and getting into PFS. And it gets really hard when you don't have enough space to even add an extra table if you wanted because you're sharing space on weekends at a gaming place where 5081571 other things are trying to happen at the same time. </blockquote><p>So here's what I'm seeing.
<p>1) you've made almost no case whatsoever for playing up whenever you want to. "Because I want to" really doesn't fly as an argument.</p>
<p>2) you, and some others have identified a problem that exists - at a high player count, the scenario can become much less challenging. I believe this may be a valid point.</p>
<p>The current system (average the player level, and add one level if there are six or more players) does not really give an indication of party strength.</p>
<p>Example:</p>
<p>4 players at level 4 = APL 4
<br />
5 players at level 4 = APL 4
<br />
6 players at level 4 = APL 5
<br />
7 players at level 4 = APL 5 Really. At this point you are almost two entire parties, both at APL 4. There's pretty much no way that you won't cake walk through a 4-5 mod. At this point, I understand the frustration, and the desire to play up.</p>
<p>Long, long ago (Season 0), I suggested to Josh that there was a better way to calculate APL. Given that most adventures seem to be written for a 4 character party, and I've never seen an adventure scale up as the size of the party scales up, that it would provide a more accurate measure of party strength if APL were measured by:</p>
<p>(Total of all character levels)/4 </p>
<p>Thus, by the same example</p>
<p>4 players at level 4 = APL 4
<br />
5 players at level 4 = (4 + 4 + 4 + 4 + 4)/4 = 20/4 = APL 5
<br />
6 players at level 4 = (6 x 4)/4 = APL 6
<br />
7 players at level 4 = (7 x 4) = APL 7 Thus indicating that the correct sub-tier for this group is probably the 6-7 range.</p>
<p>One further example, this time more diverse.</p>
<p>Character A - 4th level
<br />
Character B - 3rd Level
<br />
Character C - 3rd level
<br />
Character D - 5th level
<br />
Character E - 6th level
<br />
Character F - 4th level
<br />
The dreaded seventh player, Character G - 4th level.</p>
<p>Players ABCD sit down. Their party level is (15/4)=3.75.
<br />
Player E sits down. Party is now (21/4)=5.25
<br />
Player F sits. Party is now (25/4)=6.25
<br />
Player G sits (oh noes!!!). Party is now 29/4 = 7.25</p>
<p>Under the current system, the respective party levels would be 3.75, 4.20 and (25/6 + 1) 5.17, and wait for it...(29/7 +1) 5.14 Yes,the seventh 4th level player actually made the APL go down under the current system. This is entirely counterintuitive. I believe that this actually results in a lot of your desire to play up. </p>
<p>So. Here's my proposal to you. Instead of arguing that you should be able to play up whenever you desire, perhaps you should instead be arguing that the calculate APL actually be a reflection of the strength of the party so that the APPROPRIATE level can be played.</p>Joseph Caubo wrote:Doug Miles wrote:I think that many players want to 'play up' as a result of too many players at the table. Demand for PFS is high compared to the number of GMs available, at least in my area. When I play with 5 other players at the table, quite frankly I am bored. My contributions are less significant at a 6-player table than at a 4-player table. Often when there's a single opponent to face, he's going down within 10-12 player turns at a 6-player table. That means I get one...Brother Elias (alias of crmanriq)2011-02-04T13:57:02ZRe: Pathfinder Society®: General Discussion: Clarifying the "Playing Up" RuleBrother Elias (alias of crmanriq)http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2l8tl&page=2?Clarifying-the-Playing-Up-Rule#642011-02-03T21:24:27Z2011-02-03T21:24:27Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">Mark Garringer wrote:</div><blockquote> <div class="messageboard-quotee">Brother Elias wrote:</div><blockquote><p>I don't see any reason why a commitment for this can't be a precondition to having my lower level character play up. If they won't agree to it, then I simply won't agree to play up.</p>
<p>Thoughts? </blockquote>I like it. It would help ease my mind if I were the low man at the table. Of course I also feel like I have no problem telling the table no in the first place ;) But this is a good risk mitigation device. </blockquote><p>of course, I can see:
<p>Player A: we want to play up!
<br />
Players B-D: Oh yeah (like Kool-Aid guy)
<br />
Player E: I don't know. I'm a bit low-level to play up. I guess I would play up if you all commit to paying for any raise dead if I die.
<br />
::crickets::</p>Mark Garringer wrote:Brother Elias wrote:I don't see any reason why a commitment for this can't be a precondition to having my lower level character play up. If they won't agree to it, then I simply won't agree to play up.
Thoughts?
I like it. It would help ease my mind if I were the low man at the table. Of course I also feel like I have no problem telling the table no in the first place ;) But this is a good risk mitigation device. of course, I can see: Player A: we want to play up!...Brother Elias (alias of crmanriq)2011-02-03T21:24:27ZRe: Pathfinder Society®: General Discussion: Clarifying the "Playing Up" RuleBrother Elias (alias of crmanriq)http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2l8tl&page=2?Clarifying-the-Playing-Up-Rule#622011-02-03T20:43:56Z2011-02-03T20:43:56Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">Demoyn wrote:</div><blockquote> <div class="messageboard-quotee">MisterSlanky wrote:</div><blockquote><p>If even one of those factors had not been there, we would have been in a world of hurt and were on the road to a TPK.</p>
<p></blockquote>Look at it from a different perspective, though. Had the GM not been easy on you and allowed a TPK I bet the group members would be more inclined to play down and not bully the third level character anymore! </blockquote><p>I wonder how it would affect people's desire to play up if before doing so, all party members had to agree to fully fund raise dead (or resurrection, if required) for any members who die during the mission.
<p>Next time I'm the low player at a table that wants to play up, I'll try this. </p>
<div class="messageboard-quotee">PSGOP wrote:</div><blockquote><p>You are also permitted to spend your character’s gold to help a party member purchase spellcasting services such as raise dead
</p>
or remove disease.</blockquote><p>I don't see any reason why a commitment for this can't be a precondition to having my lower level character play up. If they won't agree to it, then I simply won't agree to play up.
<p>Thoughts?</p>Demoyn wrote:MisterSlanky wrote:If even one of those factors had not been there, we would have been in a world of hurt and were on the road to a TPK.
Look at it from a different perspective, though. Had the GM not been easy on you and allowed a TPK I bet the group members would be more inclined to play down and not bully the third level character anymore! I wonder how it would affect people's desire to play up if before doing so, all party members had to agree to fully fund raise dead (or...Brother Elias (alias of crmanriq)2011-02-03T20:43:56ZRe: Pathfinder Society®: General Discussion: Playing Up: Gold Doesn't MatterBrother Elias (alias of crmanriq)http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2lttx?Playing-Up-Gold-Doesnt-Matter#72011-02-03T20:33:06Z2011-02-03T20:33:06Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">Painlord wrote:</div><blockquote> <div class="messageboard-quotee">Joseph Caubo wrote:</div><blockquote> Stuff and analysis... </blockquote><p>I somewhat agree. Gold doesn't matter (especially not when compared to roleplaying, character, and having fun).
<p>Not sure I agree with your analysis (Euan nails it nicely), Joseph, but that doesn't really matter if you believe it to be true.</p>
<p>If so, would you be fine with just asking your judge (if it were legal via PFS rules) to run you at the higher tier (for challenge), but accept the correct/lower tier's gold? </p>
<p>After all, gold doesn't matter, right? You should be willing and happy to have that happen, if gold doesn't matter. </p>
<p>I suspect not, as gold DOES matter.</p>
<p>-Pain </blockquote><p>Yeah. Really. If you really want to play up, and your argument is that gold doesn't matter - then it's pretty simple. Ask your judge to run the module at the higher tier for the challenge, but only get the gold for the tier you are allowed to have. That way, you can have your challenge, without unbalancing the game for the rest of us.Painlord wrote:Joseph Caubo wrote: Stuff and analysis...
I somewhat agree. Gold doesn't matter (especially not when compared to roleplaying, character, and having fun). Not sure I agree with your analysis (Euan nails it nicely), Joseph, but that doesn't really matter if you believe it to be true.
If so, would you be fine with just asking your judge (if it were legal via PFS rules) to run you at the higher tier (for challenge), but accept the correct/lower tier's gold?
After all, gold...Brother Elias (alias of crmanriq)2011-02-03T20:33:06ZRe: Pathfinder Society®: General Discussion: Playing Up: Gold Doesn't MatterBrother Elias (alias of crmanriq)http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2lttx?Playing-Up-Gold-Doesnt-Matter#42011-02-03T20:29:52Z2011-02-03T20:29:52Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">Joseph Caubo wrote:</div><blockquote><br />
<br />
<p>So, let's look at Average Gold from the different subtiers:
<br />
Tier 1-5
<br />
Subtier 1-2: 497
<br />
Subtier 4-5: 1488</p>
<p>Tier 1-7
<br />
Subtier 1-2: 507
<br />
Subtier 3-4: 1282
<br />
</blockquote><p>Just looking at your numbers. Assume a player plays up from 1-2 to 4-5 for all of first and second level.
<p>Gold for playing at-tier = 6 x 497 = 2982gp
<br />
Gold for playing up = 6 x 1488 = 8928gp
<br />
Difference between the two = 8928 - 2982 = 5946gp</p>
<p>If the player gets full PA for all missions, he should have 12 PA at this point. One more mission should get him to 13TPA, which is enough to spend 3000gp on an item.</p>
<p>So the player who did not play up, can have bought a +1 weapon and a +1 armor (approximately 3K gold).
<br />
A player who has played up for every mission can buy the same +1 weapon, and +1 armor. He can also buy a +1 cloak, a second +1 weapon (for ranged, or two handed) maybe some +1 armor for his companion/familiar, and have enough money left over for several wands.</p>
<p>Your argument about TPA being a limiting factor is not valid. Just because the player cannot buy high cost items does not mean that he is not better equipped than the player who has played at level.</p>
<p>Several people have pointed this out to you, along with other excellent reasons why playing up should not be allowed, but you seem to simply be ignoring all arguments that you don't like.</p>
<p>The argument "because I want to" really doesn't convince me.</p>Joseph Caubo wrote:So, let's look at Average Gold from the different subtiers:
Tier 1-5
Subtier 1-2: 497
Subtier 4-5: 1488
Tier 1-7
Subtier 1-2: 507
Subtier 3-4: 1282
Just looking at your numbers. Assume a player plays up from 1-2 to 4-5 for all of first and second level. Gold for playing at-tier = 6 x 497 = 2982gp
Gold for playing up = 6 x 1488 = 8928gp
Difference between the two = 8928 - 2982 = 5946gp
If the player gets full PA for all missions, he should have 12 PA at this point. One...Brother Elias (alias of crmanriq)2011-02-03T20:29:52ZRe: Rules Questions: Who controls secondary characters?Brother Elias (alias of crmanriq)http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2ltox?Who-controls-secondary-characters#92011-02-03T03:25:48Z2011-02-03T03:25:48Z<p>I generally consider them to be NPC's that the DM allows to direct in most situations. (Whether I am the DM, or somebody else is DM'ing me and my animal companion.)</p>
<p>I definitely expect the DM to step in at times when the companion is being told to do something blatantly suicidal, or when the companion is outside of the direct control of the PC. (Another room, dimension, PC is incapacitated, etc).</p>
<p>Generally though, I would view at companion as a fiercely loyal friend who operates in sync with the PC under most circumstances. If the companion has 3+ intelligence, and something close to PC level wisdom, I would have no problem with it using whatever tactics the player comes up with.</p>I generally consider them to be NPC's that the DM allows to direct in most situations. (Whether I am the DM, or somebody else is DM'ing me and my animal companion.)
I definitely expect the DM to step in at times when the companion is being told to do something blatantly suicidal, or when the companion is outside of the direct control of the PC. (Another room, dimension, PC is incapacitated, etc).
Generally though, I would view at companion as a fiercely loyal friend who operates in sync...Brother Elias (alias of crmanriq)2011-02-03T03:25:48ZRe: Pathfinder Society®: General Discussion: Do PFS scenarios take too long to play through?Brother Elias (alias of crmanriq)http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2lt5d&page=2?Do-PFS-scenarios-take-too-long-to-play-through#712011-02-01T22:42:50Z2011-02-01T22:42:50Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">KnightErrantJR wrote:</div><blockquote><p> There has been a lot of good advice in this thread, however, I do think that the assumption of five hours versus four hours is going to make shaving a whole assumed hour out of a session can be problematic depending on the scenario, especially at higher levels. </p>
<p>Plus, while people should know what they are doing, not disrupt the game, and GM should be prepared for what might happen . . . its a hobby, and people aren't going to be "on" 100% of the time. Some joking around or a few moments to breathe shouldn't be something that throws off a time table.</p>
<p></blockquote><p>[Spoiler omitted]KnightErrantJR wrote:There has been a lot of good advice in this thread, however, I do think that the assumption of five hours versus four hours is going to make shaving a whole assumed hour out of a session can be problematic depending on the scenario, especially at higher levels.
Plus, while people should know what they are doing, not disrupt the game, and GM should be prepared for what might happen . . . its a hobby, and people aren't going to be "on" 100% of the time. Some joking around...Brother Elias (alias of crmanriq)2011-02-01T22:42:50ZRe: Pathfinder Society®: General Discussion: Clarifying the "Playing Up" RuleBrother Elias (alias of crmanriq)http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2l8tl?Clarifying-the-Playing-Up-Rule#372011-02-01T20:20:10Z2011-02-01T20:20:10Z<p>It's obvious we thoroughly disagree, so I'll just point to what I think is the most glaring problem with your answer.</p>
<div class="messageboard-quotee">Joseph Caubo wrote:</div><blockquote> Balance is already built into the system with TPA limits on amount of purchases. There is not a whole lot of good having more gold is going to give you without having the TPA to purchase items.</blockquote><p>Assume a character has a TPA purchase limit of 5000gp.
<p>Do you really believe that there is no power difference between a character able to buy 3-4 4000gp items and a character only able to buy 1?</p>
<p>I know that my 8th level character has really never bumped hard against the TPA limit. What holds down his power level is available gold.</p>It's obvious we thoroughly disagree, so I'll just point to what I think is the most glaring problem with your answer.
Joseph Caubo wrote:Balance is already built into the system with TPA limits on amount of purchases. There is not a whole lot of good having more gold is going to give you without having the TPA to purchase items.
Assume a character has a TPA purchase limit of 5000gp. Do you really believe that there is no power difference between a character able to buy 3-4 4000gp items and...Brother Elias (alias of crmanriq)2011-02-01T20:20:10ZRe: Rules Questions: Heirloom Weapon and Animal CompanionsBrother Elias (alias of crmanriq)http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2lt7h?Heirloom-Weapon-and-Animal-Companions#282011-02-01T18:29:00Z2011-02-01T18:29:00Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">jjaamm wrote:</div><blockquote> <div class="messageboard-quotee">Kyle Baird wrote:</div><blockquote> <div class="messageboard-quotee">Brother Elias wrote:</div><blockquote> http://dl.dropbox.com/u/6645605/MisterChuckles.jpg</blockquote>That's really unfortunate that your GM didn't print that map out to scale. :-( (1-sq = 10-ft on that map) </blockquote>Darn, just checked and your right, dont know how missed that. APOLIGIES to all those who played. </blockquote><p>Unnecessary. Thank you for running the game!jjaamm wrote:Kyle Baird wrote: Brother Elias wrote: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/6645605/MisterChuckles.jpg
That's really unfortunate that your GM didn't print that map out to scale. :-( (1-sq = 10-ft on that map) Darn, just checked and your right, dont know how missed that. APOLIGIES to all those who played. Unnecessary. Thank you for running the game!Brother Elias (alias of crmanriq)2011-02-01T18:29:00ZRe: Pathfinder Society®: General Discussion: Clarifying the "Playing Up" RuleBrother Elias (alias of crmanriq)http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2l8tl?Clarifying-the-Playing-Up-Rule#322011-02-01T18:26:07Z2011-02-01T18:26:07Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">Joseph Caubo wrote:</div><blockquote> <div class="messageboard-quotee">Joshua J. Frost wrote:</div><blockquote><p> It's very, very, very important to note that you cannot simply choose to just play up. You only get to play up when the Average Party Level (APL) of your group is between sub-Tiers. Then, and only then, the group can decide to play up to the higher sub-Tier.</p>
<p>Other than that, this is awesome. Stickied. </blockquote><p>I don't understand why you can't decide to play up if you want to as a party. If the party understands that death is more of a certainty for the increase in gold and potential loot you can buy, I say why not! And it's not like the increase in gold is going to do anything but sit there. They might get to buy +1 weapon or armor earlier than their peers, but they are still beholden to the PA spending limit.
<p>Some scenarios I've played through have been absolute cakewalks at levels 1-2, and that's with having only 4 people at the table. I definitely could've gone up to play a subtier higher and still come out A-OK. </blockquote><p>Why not "just play up"?
<p>1) Balance - Treasure and XP for any given module are intended to be balanced to the level of the party playing. If you consistently play up, the character will gain an unbalanced amount of treasure for the campaign. While this might be a great thing for you, the fact that your character has much more bling than other characters of the same level at other tables will give a sense of unfairness to others. Besides that, if your character consistently gathers more bling than his level should, he becomes unbalanced for any future encounters, making it that much more difficult to provide a challenge to you that doesn't kill you outright.</p>
<p>2) Peer Pressure - Sure you say "everyone wants to play up". But what if nobody wants to be "that guy" that speaks up for himself ans says that he'd rather not have his character die just so you can get more treasure? Or, he'd rather not just sit on the sidelines being useless while you run out and do everything fun that he can't do because he's way out of his tier?</p>
<p>3) Time - Yes, you might be able to complete an out of tier adventure. But the time given for the adventure is based on characters being of the appropriate level. What happens when every combat runs long because it takes 25-50% longer to grind down the enemies as it should because you aren't doing damage appropriate to the tier?</p>
<p>4) Character deaths - A DM should feel that monsters are actually trying to kill the characters. What happens when the DM starts feeling like he needs to pull punches because fighting to win would kill most or all of a party? Suddenly the DM has a whole lot harder job, and what might have been a fun challenge to him becomes a let down? And have you really completed the adventure if the DM had to pull punches to keep you alive? I personally think I have more pride than that. (Of course my mother never let me win any game she ever played with me when I was a child. She said that if I wanted to win, then I needed to actually win.) (This last weekend, I suspect that a judge pulled punches in order not to kill our party. Yes we were playing up. If I were the DM in that instance, I'd be seriously pissed off for being put in that position, and I'd probably have done my best to actually kill the party.)</p>Joseph Caubo wrote:Joshua J. Frost wrote:It's very, very, very important to note that you cannot simply choose to just play up. You only get to play up when the Average Party Level (APL) of your group is between sub-Tiers. Then, and only then, the group can decide to play up to the higher sub-Tier.
Other than that, this is awesome. Stickied.
I don't understand why you can't decide to play up if you want to as a party. If the party understands that death is more of a certainty for the...Brother Elias (alias of crmanriq)2011-02-01T18:26:07ZRe: Rules Questions: Heirloom Weapon and Animal CompanionsBrother Elias (alias of crmanriq)http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2lt7h?Heirloom-Weapon-and-Animal-Companions#262011-02-01T16:26:11Z2011-02-01T16:26:11Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">Magicdealer wrote:</div><blockquote><p> It could help with DPR actually, since it'll be easier to get magical enhancements. Hit bonuses make a HUGE difference in DPR calculations.</p>
<p>Heirloom could work. It's a mystic &bull;artifact&bull; that the ape clan has been worshipping for centuries. Being the &bull;smartest&bull; family of the tribe, his family got to sit around it and grunt a lot. </p>
<p>But... traits taken with the additional traits feat seem to bypass the starting requirement.</p>
<p>So, seems legal from a raw standpoint.</p>
<p></blockquote><p>I like your imagining. I was simply considering each of the cleric's new companions to be a new generation, with the previous companion leaving the weapon in the cleric's care until a new companion arrived. (Why am I suddenly thinking that there must be a large closet in the Tardis that serves a similar purpose. Heirloom clothing, waiting for the next companion... and don't get me too far along that tangent in a PG rated thread. &lt;g&gt;)
<p>With your explanation, I'm more thinking about a sliding door found in a very large monolith that happened to contain a very large hammer. Eventually one of the apes stops using a bone to beat its fellows senseless, and figures out how to use the hammer.</p>Magicdealer wrote:It could help with DPR actually, since it'll be easier to get magical enhancements. Hit bonuses make a HUGE difference in DPR calculations.
Heirloom could work. It's a mystic *artifact* that the ape clan has been worshipping for centuries. Being the *smartest* family of the tribe, his family got to sit around it and grunt a lot.
But... traits taken with the additional traits feat seem to bypass the starting requirement.
So, seems legal from a raw standpoint.
I like your...Brother Elias (alias of crmanriq)2011-02-01T16:26:11ZRe: Rules Questions: Heirloom Weapon and Animal CompanionsBrother Elias (alias of crmanriq)http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2lt7h?Heirloom-Weapon-and-Animal-Companions#242011-02-01T16:21:47Z2011-02-01T16:21:47Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">Kyle Baird wrote:</div><blockquote> <div class="messageboard-quotee">Brother Elias wrote:</div><blockquote> http://dl.dropbox.com/u/6645605/MisterChuckles.jpg</blockquote>That's really unfortunate that your GM didn't print that map out to scale. :-( (1-sq = 10-ft on that map) </blockquote><p>Hmm.
<p>Were all the corridors 10' wide as well? If so, that would address my (and most of our group's) only real complaint about the scenario.</p>Kyle Baird wrote:Brother Elias wrote: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/6645605/MisterChuckles.jpg
That's really unfortunate that your GM didn't print that map out to scale. :-( (1-sq = 10-ft on that map) Hmm. Were all the corridors 10' wide as well? If so, that would address my (and most of our group's) only real complaint about the scenario.Brother Elias (alias of crmanriq)2011-02-01T16:21:47ZRe: Rules Questions: Heirloom Weapon and Animal CompanionsBrother Elias (alias of crmanriq)http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2lt7h?Heirloom-Weapon-and-Animal-Companions#212011-02-01T13:17:56Z2011-02-01T13:17:56Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">Elyza wrote:</div><blockquote><p> Of course I would allow it. Claw/Claw/Bite for the fourth level ape is doing 3d6+24 with power attack. With the hammer, he is doing 3d6+12 with power attack. (I think) And he needs room to swing that 15' hammer, which he didn't have in that picture. So, being awesome in this context is awesome style, not better DPR.</p>
<p>And he has invested time in the mini...</p>
<p>What was his other trait? (Come on Cosmopolitan...) Edit: Awe, I back read and saw the Armor Expert. The Share Language spell and Cosmopolitan could have been fun.</p>
<p>And he could have always simply taken Martial Weapon Proficiency instead straight from the book. This way has flair. </blockquote><p>Does it help with the style points that the ape has 2 ranks in Linguistics (Chelaxian [yes, yes, I know - some upstarts refer to it as Taldan], and Pathfinder Sign), has a rank in Knowledge(Local) and carries a chalkboard with chalk?Elyza wrote:Of course I would allow it. Claw/Claw/Bite for the fourth level ape is doing 3d6+24 with power attack. With the hammer, he is doing 3d6+12 with power attack. (I think) And he needs room to swing that 15' hammer, which he didn't have in that picture. So, being awesome in this context is awesome style, not better DPR.
And he has invested time in the mini...
What was his other trait? (Come on Cosmopolitan...) Edit: Awe, I back read and saw the Armor Expert. The Share Language spell...Brother Elias (alias of crmanriq)2011-02-01T13:17:56ZRe: Rules Questions: Heirloom Weapon and Animal CompanionsBrother Elias (alias of crmanriq)http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2lt7h?Heirloom-Weapon-and-Animal-Companions#162011-01-31T20:56:52Z2011-01-31T20:56:52Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">jjaamm wrote:</div><blockquote><p> and the mini is real cool</p>
<p>http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?pid=409534&amp;id=100000914980359&amp;fbi d=182224898484675 </blockquote><p>Here's a more publicly accessible copy of the photo.
<p>http://dl.dropbox.com/u/6645605/MisterChuckles.jpg</p>
<p>The somewhat matching figure to the left of Mister Chuckles (ape) is Brother Elias. </p>
<p>Mister Chuckles is a DDM Large Dire Ape mini that I modded with (Underwater epoxy putty) to add leather armor. The lucerne hammer is made from a 3/16" brass rod, and a 1/8 inch thick piece of PVC. </p>
<p>Brother Elias is an DDM Executioner that I modified by changing the axe to a skull-head club (again with epoxy putty, along with some static grass that I painted black for shrunken-head hair). You can't see it in this photo, but Brother Elias is wearing 4ss-less chaps, with a symbol of Cheliax on the right butt cheek.</p>jjaamm wrote:and the mini is real cool
http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?pid=409534&id=100000914980359&fbi d=182224898484675
Here's a more publicly accessible copy of the photo. http://dl.dropbox.com/u/6645605/MisterChuckles.jpg
The somewhat matching figure to the left of Mister Chuckles (ape) is Brother Elias.
Mister Chuckles is a DDM Large Dire Ape mini that I modded with (Underwater epoxy putty) to add leather armor. The lucerne hammer is made from a 3/16" brass rod, and a 1/8 inch...Brother Elias (alias of crmanriq)2011-01-31T20:56:52ZRe: Rules Questions: Heirloom Weapon and Animal CompanionsBrother Elias (alias of crmanriq)http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2lt7h?Heirloom-Weapon-and-Animal-Companions#92011-01-31T19:34:25Z2011-01-31T19:34:25Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">Bertious wrote:</div><blockquote> He's gonna run into problems when he gets to size large at level 4 as the bonus's are not transferable and i don't know a way to make his hammer bigger. </blockquote><p>It was my Ape. Large Ape. Large Hammer.
<p>Not a Druid. Cleric (Zarongel).</p>
<p>Ape has the feats: Combat Reflexes, Power Attack, Additional Traits (Heirloom Weapon (Large Lucerne Hammer), Armor Expert).</p>
<p>PRD: "Animal companions with an Intelligence of 3 or higher can select any feat they are physically capable of using."</p>
<p>Pathfinder Society Guide to Organized Play: "Can I improve my companion’s Intelligence to 3 or higher and give it weapon feats? </p>
<p>Yes. Following the guidelines for animal companions as established on page 53 of the Pathfinder RPG Core Rulebook, this is legal. Your companion must be physically capable of wielding the weapon (no tigers with longswords, for example). Bear in mind, however, that an animal’s natural attacks nearly always yield better results than spending feat slots and gold pieces to equip your companion."</p>Bertious wrote:He's gonna run into problems when he gets to size large at level 4 as the bonus's are not transferable and i don't know a way to make his hammer bigger.
It was my Ape. Large Ape. Large Hammer. Not a Druid. Cleric (Zarongel).
Ape has the feats: Combat Reflexes, Power Attack, Additional Traits (Heirloom Weapon (Large Lucerne Hammer), Armor Expert).
PRD: "Animal companions with an Intelligence of 3 or higher can select any feat they are physically capable of using."
Pathfinder...Brother Elias (alias of crmanriq)2011-01-31T19:34:25ZPathfinder Society®: General Discussion: Limits of Player Responsibility towards other Playerskjkjkj1 (alias of crmanriq)http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2lin9?Limits-of-Player-Responsibility-towards-other#12012-11-15T22:59:24Z2010-11-22T23:37:22Z<p>I've been thinking a bit about this topic since I lost a Level 1 character saving the life of a level 4 character.</p>
<p>How much do you expect other players characters to do in helping your character? And how much do you feel responsible for assisting other player characters?</p>
<p>I generally play a cleric. He's not the bright and shiny kind, but specializes in necromancy.</p>
<p>He has a wand of Cure Light Wounds. It's his second wand. So far he's probably expended an entire CLW wand on other party members, and because of PFS rules, can't really be compensated for that in any way. I'm starting to think that I really shouldn't be spending my gold-based resources on other characters. </p>
<p>But then what should we expect one character to do for another?</p>
<p>Should a caster wade into battle to help a downed melee fighter? Should a cleric do so? (hopefully with Channel Positive Energy, most clerics won't have to. My cleric doesn't have that available. I do have an animal companion that I can risk. And probably would risk.)</p>
<p>I know people expect rogues to walk out front and look for traps, like captured soldiers sent ahead to probe for mines. I'm not sure I'd want that role if I played a rogue. I'd be happier if a druid sent his companion out. Or an unseen servant poked and prodded things. </p>
<p>So I guess this post is just a general questionnaire. </p>
<p>Questions.</p>
<p>1. What class is your primary character?</p>
<p>2. What duties do you consider your responsibility within the group?</p>
<p>3. What gold-based resources are you willing to expend for other characters in the group without the possibility of repayment?</p>
<p>4. What do you expect other members of your PFS session to do to support you? </p>
<p>5. Do you expect them to expend gold-based resources on your behalf?</p>
<p>6. Do you expect them to risk their character's lives on your behalf? If so, do you take this into consideration before you get yourself into dangerous situations?</p>I've been thinking a bit about this topic since I lost a Level 1 character saving the life of a level 4 character.
How much do you expect other players characters to do in helping your character? And how much do you feel responsible for assisting other player characters?
I generally play a cleric. He's not the bright and shiny kind, but specializes in necromancy.
He has a wand of Cure Light Wounds. It's his second wand. So far he's probably expended an entire CLW wand on other party...kjkjkj1 (alias of crmanriq)2010-11-22T23:37:22ZRe: Rules Questions: Animal Companions and their Typecrmanriqhttp://paizo.com/threads/rzs2l6z0?Animal-Companions-and-their-Type#52010-08-23T13:11:24Z2010-08-23T13:11:04Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">seekerofshadowlight wrote:</div><blockquote><p> The HD do not change, you only get what is listed under the animal companion section. It does not matter if it's Int is 2 or 20, and it looses everything and becomes a normal animal from the book if ya ever dismiss it anyhow</p>
<p>They are not normal animals to start with anyhow. </blockquote><p>Can you point me to any rules text (book and page number) that supports the assertion that the animal companion loses any abilities if dismissed? I can't find it anywhere in the core rules.seekerofshadowlight wrote:The HD do not change, you only get what is listed under the animal companion section. It does not matter if it's Int is 2 or 20, and it looses everything and becomes a normal animal from the book if ya ever dismiss it anyhow
They are not normal animals to start with anyhow.
Can you point me to any rules text (book and page number) that supports the assertion that the animal companion loses any abilities if dismissed? I can't find it anywhere in the core rules.crmanriq2010-08-23T13:11:04ZRe: Rules Questions: Animal Companions and their Typecrmanriqhttp://paizo.com/threads/rzs2l6z0?Animal-Companions-and-their-Type#42010-08-23T13:08:01Z2010-08-23T13:08:00Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">HaraldKlak wrote:</div><blockquote> <div class="messageboard-quotee">crmanriq wrote:</div><blockquote><p> I'm unable to find a rule that adequately covers this, so I'm seeking opinions (and if James or Jason feels so inclined, a ruling).</p>
<p><b>Is an Animal Companion still an animal if you raise it's intelligence to a 3 or higher?</b></p>
<p>Given the numerous provisions for Animal Companions with Int of 3 or greater, it's plainly allowed that they can become smarter. And their feat and skill choices increase. This is also encompassed by the Guide to Pathfinder Society Organized Play.
<br />
</blockquote><p>My answer would be a loud NO. The animal companion does not become a magical beast.
<p>You mention a lot of good reasons yourself. The hit die and bab increases would be broken (in the sense that all druid would choose to boost their companions to int 3). And the awaken spell does specifically state, that awakened animals (now magical beasts) can not serve as an animal companion.</p>
<p>The druid animal companion isn't the only exception to the rules of animals with higher intelligence. The paladins mount (which functions as an animal companion) has an intelligence of at least 6 without being a magical beast (which it becomes at paladin level 11). </blockquote><p>The Paladin's mount is an excellent example. Thanks. That really puts me into "It's an animal no matter what it's intelligence is." territory.HaraldKlak wrote:crmanriq wrote:I'm unable to find a rule that adequately covers this, so I'm seeking opinions (and if James or Jason feels so inclined, a ruling).
Is an Animal Companion still an animal if you raise it's intelligence to a 3 or higher?
Given the numerous provisions for Animal Companions with Int of 3 or greater, it's plainly allowed that they can become smarter. And their feat and skill choices increase. This is also encompassed by the Guide to Pathfinder Society Organized...crmanriq2010-08-23T13:08:00ZRules Questions: Animal Companions and their Typecrmanriqhttp://paizo.com/threads/rzs2l6z0?Animal-Companions-and-their-Type#12012-11-15T22:47:10Z2010-08-23T12:02:25Z<p>I'm unable to find a rule that adequately covers this, so I'm seeking opinions (and if James or Jason feels so inclined, a ruling).</p>
<p><b>Is an Animal Companion still an animal if you raise it's intelligence to a 3 or higher?</b></p>
<p>Given the numerous provisions for Animal Companions with Int of 3 or greater, it's plainly allowed that they can become smarter. And their feat and skill choices increase. This is also encompassed by the Guide to Pathfinder Society Organized Play.</p>
<p>However...</p>
<p>According to the Bestiary (p307) under Animal Traits: "Intelligence score of 1 or 2 (<b>no creature with an Intelligence score of 3 or higher can be an animal</b>).</p>
<p>The logical choice would be that an Animal becomes a Magical Beast
<br />
Bestiary p308.
<br />
"Magical beasts are similar to animals but can have
<br />
Intelligence scores higher than 2 (in which case the magical
<br />
beast knows at least one language, but can’t necessarily speak)."</p>
<p>However, the two types are sufficiently different that this does not immediately seem a good fit.</p>
<p>Reasons
<br />
- Animal Hit Die is d8. Magical Beast is d10
<br />
- Magical Beast BAB is Fast (=HD), Animal is Medium (3/4 HD)
<br />
- Magical Beasts have Darkvision, Animals have Low-Light vision.
<br />
- Animals are always Neutral. Magical Beasts have no alignment restriction.</p>
<p>Further, an animal that has been the subject of an Awaken Spell has it's type changed to Magical Beast.</p>
<p>So I guess the question is, is an Animal Companion with an Int of 3 the exception to the Animal Type rule that limits intelligence, or does the Animal Companion actually become a Magical Beast. If it does, does it gain the larger Hit Die, Fast BAB, and Darkvision?</p>I'm unable to find a rule that adequately covers this, so I'm seeking opinions (and if James or Jason feels so inclined, a ruling).
Is an Animal Companion still an animal if you raise it's intelligence to a 3 or higher?
Given the numerous provisions for Animal Companions with Int of 3 or greater, it's plainly allowed that they can become smarter. And their feat and skill choices increase. This is also encompassed by the Guide to Pathfinder Society Organized Play.
However...
According to...crmanriq2010-08-23T12:02:25ZRe: Paizo Products: On Pathfinder, and Paladins and Development Errorscrmanriqhttp://paizo.com/threads/rzs2l6h8?On-Pathfinder-and-Paladins-and-Development#292010-08-19T20:55:52Z2010-08-19T20:40:33Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">James Jacobs wrote:</div><blockquote><p> As much as it bugs the OP, I can GUARENTEE it bugs me more. Especially since, in this case, it's already in print and going back to "errata" it won't change that, since that volume of Pathfinder AP is unlikely to ever be reprinted (we have PLENTY in stock). If/when we compile Sean's deity articles into a big book some day in the future, THEN we'll make that change. For now, though, it's just something that I have to deal with, and something that every GM will need to either make a judgement call on for his own game and/or seek out advice on these boards.</p>
<div class="messageboard-quotee">crmanriq wrote:</div><blockquote> - Does the PDF still have this section? </blockquote><p>Yes.
<div class="messageboard-quotee">crmanriq wrote:</div><blockquote> - Is the book receiving errata? </blockquote><p>No. I'm not interested in setting a precedent of issuing errata for EVERY book we print, since we simply don't have time to wallow in our previous errors to that extent.
<div class="messageboard-quotee">crmanriq wrote:</div><blockquote> - Will the PDF be adjusted to remove this section? </blockquote><p>No.
<div class="messageboard-quotee">crmanriq wrote:</div><blockquote> - What other sections of what other books should I disregard? </blockquote><p>None. The rest of the books are fine.
<div class="messageboard-quotee">crmanriq wrote:</div><blockquote> - If I can't trust the printed material that I purchase to be canon, then what reason do I have for purchasing the printed material? </blockquote><p>If one development error getting into print like this is enough to make you lose trust in our work on Golarion... I'm not sure what I can say aside from I'm sorry.
<div class="messageboard-quotee">crmanriq wrote:</div><blockquote> - If the PDF is not being re-edited to take out the section that should never have seen print, then why not? Why buy the PDF? </blockquote><p>Because there's a LOT more material in that volume that ISN'T an error that still works fine. Including that specific article about Asmodeus.
<div class="messageboard-quotee">crmanriq wrote:</div><blockquote> - If the rules as printed don't tell me enough to be able to know whether my character is legal or not for PFS play, then do I just show up and hope for the best? </blockquote>PFS does not generally allow every single new option in ALL of our books to be legal for play. Buying our Adventure Paths solely to... </blockquote><p>James,
<p>Many thanks for stepping up and addressing all of my questions. As I stated later in the thread, it's more <b>my</b> problem than anything else. </p>
<p>I fully understand that as a company, your aim is to drive <b>forward</b> than to have to recircle back to fix things that got missed or miss-printed. [deliberate misspelling]. </p>
<p>I enjoy the game. I enjoy the setting. I enjoy the organized play. I bring up issues in the hopes that you won't end up doing to Pathfinder what WOTC did to 4e. (I know, a whole other discussion for some other company's forum. Dropping that.)</p>James Jacobs wrote:As much as it bugs the OP, I can GUARENTEE it bugs me more. Especially since, in this case, it's already in print and going back to "errata" it won't change that, since that volume of Pathfinder AP is unlikely to ever be reprinted (we have PLENTY in stock). If/when we compile Sean's deity articles into a big book some day in the future, THEN we'll make that change. For now, though, it's just something that I have to deal with, and something that every GM will need to either...crmanriq2010-08-19T20:40:33ZRe: Paizo Products: On Pathfinder, and Paladins and Development Errorscrmanriqhttp://paizo.com/threads/rzs2l6h8?On-Pathfinder-and-Paladins-and-Development#202010-08-19T17:51:10Z2010-08-19T17:51:10Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">Kolokotroni wrote:</div><blockquote> <div class="messageboard-quotee">crmanriq wrote:</div><blockquote><p> Re: Evil - There is absolutely zero mechanism to track alignment or alignment shifts in PFS, so I personally discount this reasoning. More probable, from my point of view is that Lawful Evil is subtle. Deception and subtlety are their stock in trade. Why are you freeing slaves? To raise the price of slaves on the market, thus increasing the profits for Cheliax. Why are you doing this good act? So that halfway across the world, Evil will gain a small advantage. </p>
<p>This is why I see Asmodeus being quite happy to find a place for Paladins within his rule. He can send a Paladin out to perform good and lawful acts. Save the princess, keep the peace, destroy the minions of Rovagug, rescue slaves. All the while, each act in some quiet, subtle way pushes his agenda forward. Without the BIG BIG BIG picture, the paladin will have no inkling that what he is doing is other than good and lawful. He will see himself as an example to others in the church in how to change things from the inside. He will be a hero to the children and the masses. </p>
<p>It's not even necessary to have the paladin be an idiot or a dupe (Lawful Stupid, as it's sometimes called), This is a Greater God that we are talking about. His plans span centuries, and the breadth of all of the planes of existence. What would be the alternative for the paladin, even if he had a hint of a greater plan in his mission? Not to rescue the slaves, or save the child? Therein lies the true genius of Asmodeus. Present the paladin with situations in which his very nature will drive him forward. Show him that he has a valued place. That Asmodeus stands for Law. That Asmodeus will give him his powers in order to do good works, and will never ever ask him to perform any evil or chaotic act.</p>
<p>I see great depth in this sort of machination. Something that might present awesome role-playing opportunities. </p>
<p>But, alas...not in the PFS campaign.
<br />
</blockquote>Regardless of rulings or what have you this story wouldn't play well in any organized play situation.... </blockquote><p>Oh, I know this thing won't ever get covered in Organized Play. I'm talking about how/why paladins of evil could (and probably would) exist. I'm talking about fluff on my (well, not on, but next to) my character sheet. The type of thing that you start launching into at the table when people say "Really?? A paladin of X?" or (what I get) is "Really, a necromancer cleric of Ydersius with an animal companion that you Animate Dead on if it dies???"Kolokotroni wrote:crmanriq wrote:Re: Evil - There is absolutely zero mechanism to track alignment or alignment shifts in PFS, so I personally discount this reasoning. More probable, from my point of view is that Lawful Evil is subtle. Deception and subtlety are their stock in trade. Why are you freeing slaves? To raise the price of slaves on the market, thus increasing the profits for Cheliax. Why are you doing this good act? So that halfway across the world, Evil will gain a small
...crmanriq2010-08-19T17:51:10ZRe: Paizo Products: On Pathfinder, and Paladins and Development Errorscrmanriqhttp://paizo.com/threads/rzs2l6h8?On-Pathfinder-and-Paladins-and-Development#192010-08-19T17:52:10Z2010-08-19T17:46:52Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">Enevhar Aldarion wrote:</div><blockquote> <div class="messageboard-quotee">crmanriq wrote:</div><blockquote><br />
<br />
The rules forums are no place to gather rulings. There are too many people with too many opinions that will scream much louder than you, because after all, you are asking a question, not pushing a point of view. Those that are pushing a point of view will get their way.
<br />
</blockquote><p>Well, when you have three different possible rulings that can happen, how it should work in your home campaign, how it officially works in the company's setting (Golarion), and how it even more strictly works in the Organized Play campaign using the company setting, then yes, it makes it much harder to keep track of rulings.
<p>Of course, you will get tons of posts/threads arguing about a problem, then a developer will step in and make an official post saying "this is how it works", and then you get tons more posts/threads arguing about how official the official ruling really is.</p>
<p>But frankly, even with the occasional exceptions, these forums are still much more polite and free of trolls and obnoxious people than practically any other forum I have been on that dealt with rpgs. </blockquote><p><b>Politeness</b> - yes, I think that generally, the Paizo boards are more polite than most other's that I've seen.
<p><b>Officialness</b> - What would be more optimal, to me were if there were one locked thread on the each of the Pathfinder, Golarian, and Pathfinder Society boards, where the only posts were official rulings. Mirrored in a PDF that could be downloaded through the "My Downloads". The thread would contain short synopses of rulings. (ie. on Pathfinder Society - [this is per an earlier ruling by Josh that has not yet been incorporated into the Guide to Organized Play] - "For clerics, the character must be with in one step of the alignment of their deity. For other classes, no alignment restriction applies. This is a change to page xx in the guide, and will be incorporated into a future printing."</p>
<p>But, that's mostly wishful thinking. The game has grown quite quickly, and it really looks like the Paizo folks are still overwhelmed on their website. A big push to come up with a organized forum strategy would probably help them out a lot in the long run, but it's always hard to justify the time required to do so.</p>Enevhar Aldarion wrote:crmanriq wrote:
The rules forums are no place to gather rulings. There are too many people with too many opinions that will scream much louder than you, because after all, you are asking a question, not pushing a point of view. Those that are pushing a point of view will get their way.
Well, when you have three different possible rulings that can happen, how it should work in your home campaign, how it officially works in the company's setting (Golarion), and how it...crmanriq2010-08-19T17:46:52ZRe: Paizo Products: On Pathfinder, and Paladins and Development Errorscrmanriqhttp://paizo.com/threads/rzs2l6h8?On-Pathfinder-and-Paladins-and-Development#162010-08-19T17:37:05Z2010-08-19T17:35:23Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">Enevhar Aldarion wrote:</div><blockquote> <div class="messageboard-quotee">crmanriq wrote:</div><blockquote>Oh, the only point of disagreement, and it's a minor one. Having played 5 levels now of a Cheliax character in PFS, I've yet to see a single goal that a Paladin would have moral qualms about accomplishing. They actually seem to get the tamest goals of any faction. Pass this note. Bring a sample of this substance. Pass this message. Free these slaves. (REALLY. FREE THESE SLAVES. Really. Cheliax - freeing the slaves.)</blockquote><p>There is also the post that James made when he locked that thread:
<div class="messageboard-quotee">James Jacobs wrote:</div><blockquote><p>Cheliax faction paladins are completely legal.</p>
<p>Asmodeus-worshiping paladins are not.</p>
<p>You can be a Cheliax faction character who doesn't worship Asmodeus. The vast majority of Chelaix's citizens don't actually worship Asmodeus, in fact... although they're all afraid of him.</blockquote>And I feel that a lot of the Cheliax missions are mild because evil alignments are not allowed for PFS characters. So if you had to do a lot of missions that were more evil in nature, then the game would be forcing your character's alignment to slide toward evil, perhaps resulting in a forced retirement of your character due to alignment change. </blockquote><p><b>Re: James Jacob's final post on thread</b> - I thought about including that, but since it went right along with his first word on the thread, I left it out out of redundancy. Thanks for posting it.
<p>I think that most Chelaxians profess to worship Asmodeus not out of fear of the Deity, but out of fear of the Paracountess and the rest of the hierarchy. The Cheliax book makes it clear that many of the church services in Asmodeus are performed as much to be seen professing faith as anything else.</p>
<p>I'm playing a Cheliax Cleric of Ydersius in PFS. His outlook (and role-played as such) of the Paracountess is much like a North Korean's outlook of the Great Leader would be - you had better be seen as one of the most ardent supporters, and you had better turn in anyone who isn't. </p>
<p><b>Re: Evil</b> - There is absolutely zero mechanism to track alignment or alignment shifts in PFS, so I personally discount this reasoning. More probable, from my point of view is that Lawful Evil is subtle. Deception and subtlety are their stock in trade. Why are you freeing slaves? To raise the price of slaves on the market, thus increasing the profits for Cheliax. Why are you doing this good act? So that halfway across the world, Evil will gain a small advantage. </p>
<p>This is why I see Asmodeus being quite happy to find a place for Paladins within his rule. He can send a Paladin out to perform good and lawful acts. Save the princess, keep the peace, destroy the minions of Rovagug, rescue slaves. All the while, each act in some quiet, subtle way pushes his agenda forward. Without the BIG BIG BIG picture, the paladin will have no inkling that what he is doing is other than good and lawful. He will see himself as an example to others in the church in how to change things from the inside. He will be a hero to the children and the masses. </p>
<p>It's not even necessary to have the paladin be an idiot or a dupe (Lawful Stupid, as it's sometimes called), This is a Greater God that we are talking about. His plans span centuries, and the breadth of all of the planes of existence. What would be the alternative for the paladin, even if he had a hint of a greater plan in his mission? Not to rescue the slaves, or save the child? Therein lies the true genius of Asmodeus. Present the paladin with situations in which his very nature will drive him forward. Show him that he has a valued place. That Asmodeus stands for Law. That Asmodeus will give him his powers in order to do good works, and will never ever ask him to perform any evil or chaotic act.</p>
<p>I see great depth in this sort of machination. Something that might present awesome role-playing opportunities. </p>
<p>But, alas...not in the PFS campaign.</p>Enevhar Aldarion wrote:crmanriq wrote:Oh, the only point of disagreement, and it's a minor one. Having played 5 levels now of a Cheliax character in PFS, I've yet to see a single goal that a Paladin would have moral qualms about accomplishing. They actually seem to get the tamest goals of any faction. Pass this note. Bring a sample of this substance. Pass this message. Free these slaves. (REALLY. FREE THESE SLAVES. Really. Cheliax - freeing the slaves.)
There is also the post that James made...crmanriq2010-08-19T17:35:23ZRe: Paizo Products: On Pathfinder, and Paladins and Development Errorscrmanriqhttp://paizo.com/threads/rzs2l6h8?On-Pathfinder-and-Paladins-and-Development#132010-08-19T17:38:20Z2010-08-19T17:17:58Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">Kolokotroni wrote:</div><blockquote> Ok, this is more or less what I expected. So aside from adding fuel to the never ending batman/robinhood[alignment] debate, what part of this says character option? It seems like a clear plot element/flavor to me. </blockquote><p>Ah. Well, this grew out of somebody asking on the Pathfinder Society forum whether or not Paladins of Asmodeus were legal to play. Which led to someone saying [paraphrasing] 'of course not', and someone else pointing to the article as a reason why they would be. And forth and back and so on.
<p>The one take-away I've gotten from this whole thing.</p>
<p><b>Don't ask rules questions on the rules forums.</b> Look for the answers in the Core Assumption (Core Rules + Bestiary + Seeker of Secrets). If what you are wanting to do allowed (or is not prohibited by a plain text reading of the rules), then simply make your character according to the rules. Show up at the game with the relevant rule, and if it becomes an issue with the DM, discuss it there.</p>
<p>The rules forums are no place to gather rulings. There are too many people with too many opinions that will scream much louder than you, because after all, you are asking a question, not pushing a point of view. Those that are pushing a point of view will get their way. </p>
<p>Oh, one other thing. In an environment with strangers, leave all of the non-rule information (hair color, eye color, height, weight, religion (if your class does not specifically require a deity), place of birth, mother's maiden name, name of first pet, pin number, favorite color, etc) on your sheet blank. Keep your backstory on a separate piece of paper. There are a lot of people out there who will hate your fluff (it's kind of like not discussing politics, religion, or sex with strangers - somebody will hate something that you don't and then they'll hate you because you don't hate what they hate). It's better to have a fluff-free character sheet than one that can be objected to in any way.</p>Kolokotroni wrote:Ok, this is more or less what I expected. So aside from adding fuel to the never ending batman/robinhood[alignment] debate, what part of this says character option? It seems like a clear plot element/flavor to me.
Ah. Well, this grew out of somebody asking on the Pathfinder Society forum whether or not Paladins of Asmodeus were legal to play. Which led to someone saying [paraphrasing] 'of course not', and someone else pointing to the article as a reason why they would be....crmanriq2010-08-19T17:17:58ZRe: Paizo Products: On Pathfinder, and Paladins and Development Errorscrmanriqhttp://paizo.com/threads/rzs2l6h8?On-Pathfinder-and-Paladins-and-Development#102010-08-19T16:55:00Z2010-08-19T16:40:34Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">Quandary wrote:</div><blockquote><p> I don`t even have the original ¨Paladin of Asmodeus¨ article,
</p>
but from what I know, it doesn`t even seem like it`s directly talking about ¨Paladins OF Asmodeus¨, i.e. those whose powers derives from Asmodeus and who explicitly worship him. Why can`t Asmodeus ¨use Paladins as a tool¨ indirectly (i.e. not providing their divine powers), i.e. tricking them into doing his will, etc, but not be ultimately responsible for their powers? That seems alot more likely of an explanation to me, and suprememly in line with the modus operandi of a being like Asmodeus. </blockquote><div class="messageboard-quotee">relevant text from article, thus it is wrote:</div><blockquote><br />
<br />
"As a whole, Asmodeus’s church has few organized groups of soldiers, mainly because in most lands their religion is forbidden and a large, open group attracts too much attention. Even in many evil countries, where worship of the Prince of Darkness is openly allowed, tyrannical militaries and despotic laws reduce the need or impetus to create special groups in Asmodeus’s name. However, monastic orders aligned with Hell are not that unusual; the rigid discipline and isolated community of such an organization are complementary to the lawful-minded and often-persecuted Asmodean faith. </p>
<p>Paladins also have a strange relationship with the Archfiend. <b>Though the idea of a lawful good paladin serving a lawful evil deity seems ridiculous, it can happen. Asmodeus is primarily a deity of law, with evil being incidental to his concept of law. Very rarely, Asmodeus allows a true paladin to serve him, using him as a tool in lands where a more traditional priest would be hunted.</b> The paladin’s duties are always very carefully explained and restricted to avoid conflicts that result in evil thoughts or actions; in effect, the paladin is a champion of contracts and law, who happens to be good. This is possible for three reasons: One, Asmodeus can have clerics who are lawful neutral rather than lawful evil; these clerics walk a fine line that avoids outright evil while still promoting order, and therefore in theory a paladin can do the same. Two, the nature of evil does not require one to always be evil; an evil person who doesn’t rob, murder, or torture at every opportunity is not at risk of becoming less evil—in fact, an evil person can perform good acts every day, making <b>it entirely possible (though exceedingly rare) for a servant of Asmodeus to be good, having never done an evil act.</b> Three, the deceptions of Asmodeus are subtle and deft, and it’s potentially possible for a paladin to believe his efforts and the orderly god’s will serve a greater good, though ultimately he serves nothing more than the god of
<br />
tyranny’s cruel agendas.</p>
<p>Such paladins sometimes see themselves as reformers of their church, trying to convince others that it is possible to serve the ultimate law and still be a good person. Religious scholars speculate that these paladins are actually granted powers by another deity (typically Iomedae or Sarenrae) through some complex arrangement with the Prince of Darkness. However, it is possible that having a good paladin in his service benefits his plans in the long run, and that these enigmatic individuals really are serving Asmodeus. Their path is much more difficult than other paladins, and only those lucky enough to die young avoid falling from grace—though what fate their souls face in the afterlife remains a matter of great theological debate."
<br />
</blockquote><p>[emphasis mine]Quandary wrote:I don`t even have the original ¨Paladin of Asmodeus¨ article,
but from what I know, it doesn`t even seem like it`s directly talking about ¨Paladins OF Asmodeus¨, i.e. those whose powers derives from Asmodeus and who explicitly worship him. Why can`t Asmodeus ¨use Paladins as a tool¨ indirectly (i.e. not providing their divine powers), i.e. tricking them into doing his will, etc, but not be ultimately responsible for their powers? That seems alot more likely of an explanation...crmanriq2010-08-19T16:40:34ZRe: Paizo Products: On Pathfinder, and Paladins and Development Errorscrmanriqhttp://paizo.com/threads/rzs2l6h8?On-Pathfinder-and-Paladins-and-Development#82010-08-19T16:54:45Z2010-08-19T15:57:00Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">Kolokotroni wrote:</div><blockquote><p> Hmm never had a typo corrected with a limerick before, thanks Chris Mortika for the mild amusement.</p>
<p>Anyway, so there were alot more threads about this then I was aware of, hehe. I guess the whole paladin of the lawful evil god would be a hot button issue. I am definately far more layed back about this sort of stuff because even as an AP subscriber, the material is most of the time more for inspiration and ideas then to be used as canon. There is still only one publisher that gets a blanket ok at my table, and that is Super Genius Games. But that is mostly because they produce self contained easily digestible (small) products instead of the massive interrelated libraries of stuff the big publishers put out. Bigger the scale, the better the chance there is of something being in there that's out of wack. It is litereally inevitable.</p>
<p>I will have to re-read the article itself, but it seemed to me to be an article to help dms write interesting storylines for their game and not something to be used to justify characters. But then again, like I said I am extremely willing to handwave great swaths of material into and out of my game(always with proper notice to my players of course) so it just doesnt seem to be a big deal to me.</p>
<p>But anyway, back to the main point from the OP's thread:
<br />
<b>Does the PDF still have this section? </b>
<br />
It is extremely unlikely the PDF will be edited in the near future if ever. I dont have access to my copy of the pdf can someone check? But i would be 98% sure its still there.
<br />
<b>- Is the book receiving errata?</b>
<br />
Same as above.
<br />
<b>- Will the PDF be adjusted to remove this section? </b>
<br />
Ditto.
<br />
<b>- What other sections of what other books should I disregard? </b>
<br />
Honestly, any and all that dont work for your game. If you are talking about organized play, there is a list in the pathfinder society guide of what is legal from non-core products and what isnt. I am pretty sure that this particular article from CoT is not in the list. </p>
<p><b>- If I can't trust the printed</b>... </blockquote><p>I sincerely appreciate your thoughtful answers.
<p>I believe you have a good outlook and interpretation of the use of the books in play. </p>
<p>Portions of the book (certain spells, and the customized summon list) are usable within PFS, but as you say, it's not all legal as player resources. </p>
<p>I currently run the Legacy of Fire campaign at my FLGS, and I understand that what to let in and keep out is the domain of the DM. I'm very liberal in what I let in, as I believe that players should have the opportunity to play characters that they want to play, not characters that I want them to play. As a consequence, I've had characters ranging from "I'm a generic archer" to "I'm an alcoholic pirate wench cleric who somehow wound up in the deserts of Katapesh".</p>
<p>[I keep writing things that devolve back to the locked thread, and then self-edit them out, as I don't want to re-fight a lost battle.]</p>
<p>So. Bottom line. I agree with you that most probably nothing in print or pdf will see any changes. I reluctantly agree with you that the best use of the Paizo material is as inspiration and not as canon, given that we can regard the Paladins of Asmodeus issue as a glaring reminder that print &lt;&gt; canon. Re: Pathfinder Society, I also agree with you that by and large, most judges will be cool with whatever you bring to the table, but the closer one is to any fine line, the more likely one is to find that line redrawn with oneself on the wrong side of it.</p>
<p>Oh, the only point of disagreement, and it's a minor one. Having played 5 levels now of a Cheliax character in PFS, I've yet to see a single goal that a Paladin would have moral qualms about accomplishing. They actually seem to get the tamest goals of any faction. Pass this note. Bring a sample of this substance. Pass this message. Free these slaves. (REALLY. FREE THESE SLAVES. Really. Cheliax - freeing the slaves.)</p>
<p>Cheers, Thanks. and good gaming.</p>Kolokotroni wrote:Hmm never had a typo corrected with a limerick before, thanks Chris Mortika for the mild amusement.
Anyway, so there were alot more threads about this then I was aware of, hehe. I guess the whole paladin of the lawful evil god would be a hot button issue. I am definately far more layed back about this sort of stuff because even as an AP subscriber, the material is most of the time more for inspiration and ideas then to be used as canon. There is still only one publisher...crmanriq2010-08-19T15:57:00ZRe: Paizo Products: On Pathfinder, and Paladins and Development Errorscrmanriqhttp://paizo.com/threads/rzs2l6h8?On-Pathfinder-and-Paladins-and-Development#52010-08-19T15:15:43Z2010-08-19T14:40:29Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">Chris Mortika wrote:</div><blockquote> ...(I admit, I'm unfamiliar with any place where James recanted from the material in Council of Thieves, but honestly I wouldn't take a messageboard post as superceding written AP canon in any case.)...</blockquote><p>Here's the relevant text from the thread in question:
</p>
<a href="http://paizo.com/paizo/messageboards/paizoPublishing/pathfinder/pathfinderSociety/general/areAsmodeanPaladinsLegalForPlay&amp;page=2#74" target="_blank" rel="nofollow"> Paladin Pathfinder Society thread</a>
<br />
<div class="messageboard-quotee">James Jacobs wrote:</div><blockquote><br />
<br />
Technically, it's a DEVELOPMENT error and not an editing error that the bit about paladins of Asmodeous slipped through into print. The whole "what is Lawful Good" and "what's okay to do as a paladin" scene is WAY too complicated as it stands without us confusing things more by saying a paladin can serve a lawful evil deity. It should have been changed before it saw print, but it slipped through.</p>
<p>Paladins of Asmodeus are, in any event, not allowed in the Pathfinder Society. They're fine in home games if the GM is cool with them. I would not be.
<br />
</blockquote><p>The original reference is (I believe) this:
</p>
<a href="http://paizo.com/paizo/messageboards/paizoPublishing/pathfinder/pathfinderRPG/rules/archives/paladinDeityRuleClarification&amp;page=2#99" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">Paladins of Asmodeus thread</a>
<br />
<div class="messageboard-quotee">James Jacobs wrote:</div><blockquote><br />
<br />
<div class="messageboard-quotee">Funnyman21 wrote:</div><blockquote>I feel like pointing out that no one is mentioning paladins of Asmodeus. In the write up for the god in the Mother of Flies module, number 29 for those kids without it, it says paladins of Asmodeus exist. Page 63-64 writes how Asmodeus pulls it off and why he has them.</blockquote>Honestly, I am okay with this. I'm not a fan of paladins of Asmodeus, and had I noticed that bit before the volume went to print, I would have removed all mention of them.</blockquote><p>Chris Mortika wrote:...(I admit, I'm unfamiliar with any place where James recanted from the material in Council of Thieves, but honestly I wouldn't take a messageboard post as superceding written AP canon in any case.)...
Here's the relevant text from the thread in question:
Paladin Pathfinder Society thread
James Jacobs wrote:Technically, it's a DEVELOPMENT error and not an editing error that the bit about paladins of Asmodeous slipped through into print. The whole "what is Lawful Good"...crmanriq2010-08-19T14:40:29ZPaizo Products: On Pathfinder, and Paladins and Development Errorscrmanriqhttp://paizo.com/threads/rzs2l6h8?On-Pathfinder-and-Paladins-and-Development#12012-11-15T22:46:54Z2010-08-19T14:07:36Z<p>I've been trying to figure out what bugs me about that whole Paladins of Asmodeus discussion thread. I'm not trying to argue for or against or even about Paladins of Asmodeus. That thread is closed. But the thread still bothers me.</p>
<p>On one side, you have posters insisting that a Paladin must be within x steps of their deity, otherwise they would lose all paladin-ness.
<br />
On another side, you have people talking about how a paladin doesn't need to serve any deity, per the rules and the campaign setting.
<br />
On another side you have people looking for reasons to kick people from their table and some others going off the deep end.
<br />
And then along comes James Jacobs who says that an entire section of the Council of Thieves AP was a "production error" and should never have been printed and should be ignored.</p>
<p>And I think that's what's bothering me most.</p>
<p>It brings a whole host of questions.</p>
<p>- Does the PDF still have this section?
<br />
- Is the book receiving errata?
<br />
- Will the PDF be adjusted to remove this section?
<br />
- What other sections of what other books should I disregard?
<br />
- If I can't trust the printed material that I purchase to be canon, then what reason do I have for purchasing the printed material?
<br />
- If the PDF is not being re-edited to take out the section that should never have seen print, then why not? Why buy the PDF?
<br />
- If the rules as printed don't tell me enough to be able to know whether my character is legal or not for PFS play, then do I just show up and hope for the best?
<br />
- Is this an isolated event or should I expect to see a lot of this and just get used to it?
<br />
- What steps are or will be put in place to avoid this happening in the future? Or should I expect that how the setting works will be different depending on who is saying what in any particular thread?</p>
<p>Until very recently, I played in Living Forgotten Realms, and bought a whole host of WOTC 4e books. What drove me from their product and their organized play was (primarily) the fact that the rules had become a moving target. Put together a character today, and by next month, that character's feats, powers and class abilities might be entirely changed because some designer decided that he wanted the rules to work in a way that another designer had not wanted them to work. It made no sense to purchase a book because the amount of errata necessary to track in order to build a character began to outweigh the book itself. For a while, I printed out sections of errata and mounted them in the margins on the appropriate pages. Until whole pages needed replacing (stealth rules anyone?) Then I just kept the errata PDF on my ipad. </p>
<p>I've been recommending Pathfinder to a lot of people. I know of at least three different customers at my FLGS who bought into Pathfinder based on my recommendation. One of the big selling features that I'd been recommending to people about Pathfinder was the comparatively stable platform. No 100 pages of new errata every month to download, read and remember. </p>
<p>I'm not saying that Pathfinder has become 4e and I'm disgusted with it and am quitting Pathfinder, but I am concerned when designers begin to disavow the product as printed.</p>
<p>Maybe I'm making a mountain out of a molehill. But I'm curious whether it's something that I'll have to deal with in the future again and again.</p>I've been trying to figure out what bugs me about that whole Paladins of Asmodeus discussion thread. I'm not trying to argue for or against or even about Paladins of Asmodeus. That thread is closed. But the thread still bothers me.
On one side, you have posters insisting that a Paladin must be within x steps of their deity, otherwise they would lose all paladin-ness.
On another side, you have people talking about how a paladin doesn't need to serve any deity, per the rules and the campaign...crmanriq2010-08-19T14:07:36ZRe: Gamer Connection: Illinois, Urbana--Opening for my Council of Thieves Campaignkjkjkj1 (alias of crmanriq)http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2kw2n?Illinois-UrbanaOpening-for-my-Council-of#52010-06-07T19:14:47Z2010-06-07T19:14:46Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">Darkmeer wrote:</div><blockquote><p> "oooh oooh pick me pick me!!!" </p>
<p>As a player in this campaign, I'll say that we have a fine DM here, and the game is a lot of fun with a very diverse crowd with different ideals on the game and all of us seem to fit well together, and that's the best part of the game :)</p>
<p>Anyhoo, I figured I'd chime in on this one, and hope to help the recruiting!</p>
<p>/d
<br />
</blockquote><p>I'll second the "Excellent DM" vote. Jared, as always, is doing an incredible job.
<p>I'm a newcomer to the campaign, but I'm already having a blast. I'd encourage anyone in the area who wants a great Pathfinder experience to join in.</p>Darkmeer wrote:"oooh oooh pick me pick me!!!"
As a player in this campaign, I'll say that we have a fine DM here, and the game is a lot of fun with a very diverse crowd with different ideals on the game and all of us seem to fit well together, and that's the best part of the game :)
Anyhoo, I figured I'd chime in on this one, and hope to help the recruiting!
/d
I'll second the "Excellent DM" vote. Jared, as always, is doing an incredible job. I'm a newcomer to the campaign, but I'm...kjkjkj1 (alias of crmanriq)2010-06-07T19:14:46ZRe: Campaign Journals: KnightErrantJR's Council of Thieves Campaignkjkjkj1 (alias of crmanriq)http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2k77s?KnightErrantJRs-Council-of-Thieves-Campaign#452010-06-04T18:58:52Z2010-06-04T18:58:06Z<p>[Out of Character]
<br />
I know Jared hasn't posted the lasted journal entry yet, but I wanted to put this down before I forgot to.</p>
<p>Having never played a non-combat bard before, this has been a trip so far. During the BBEG combat last night, I think Chesterfield ably assisted the party, while making only one actual attack. He gave the party an effective +7 to hit the BBEG (+4 prone, +3 music), while giving the BBEG an effective -6 to hit (-4 prone, -2 intimidate!!!). </p>
<p>I've always looked on the bard as the 5th wheel of the party, but I'm starting to see where they are more the indirect-indirect damage. </p>
<p>I'm really looking forward to trying out my newly-researched spell some time.
<br />
[//Out of Character]</p>[Out of Character]
I know Jared hasn't posted the lasted journal entry yet, but I wanted to put this down before I forgot to.
Having never played a non-combat bard before, this has been a trip so far. During the BBEG combat last night, I think Chesterfield ably assisted the party, while making only one actual attack. He gave the party an effective +7 to hit the BBEG (+4 prone, +3 music), while giving the BBEG an effective -6 to hit (-4 prone, -2 intimidate!!!).
I've always looked on the...kjkjkj1 (alias of crmanriq)2010-06-04T18:58:06ZRe: Gamer Talk: Rules and Game Conventionscrmanriqhttp://paizo.com/threads/rzs2ki3s?Rules-and-Game-Conventions#32010-02-12T22:11:11Z2010-02-12T15:09:23Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">Airhead wrote:</div><blockquote><p> I'm waving the BS flag.
</p>
We don't have an AI that you can simply insert the manual and have it design a fleet for you. Doug had to do a lot of work to turn the rules into something that the AI could work with. That alone would impart some sort of bias.</p>
<p>&bull;&bull;&bull;</p>
<p>The fact that he was able to make a stationary torpedo mine field win is just showing the game designers the weakness of their game. If the objective was changed to "get past the opponents fleet" the enemy would just go around, or blow a path through his stationary fleet. Doug and his AI would lose. </p>
<p>&bull;&bull;&bull;
<br />
As an old Battletech player, it was often the guy that loaded up on the little fast hover tank that won the game. Not pretty when the big walking bots are supposed to rule. But it would work and make die-hard players pull their hair out.
<br />
</blockquote><p>Two links:
<p>http://www.aliciapatterson.org/APF0704/Johnson/Johnson.html (more detailed version of the story, giving insight into the programming methods)</p>
<p>http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1056665 Published paper describing tournament, program. I don't have an ACM account, but the abstract is: </p>
<p>"During the month of June 1981, the EURISKO program was set the task of exploring the design of naval fleets conforming to a body of (several hundreds of) rules and constraints as set forward in Traveller: The Trillion Credit Squadron. EURISKO designed a fleet of ships suitable for entry in the 1981 Origins national wargame tournament, held at Dunfey's Hotel, in San Mateo, Ca., over July 4 weekend. The Traveller tournament, run by Game Designers Workshop (based in Normal, Illinois), was single elimination, six rounds. EURISKO's fleet won that tournament, thereby becoming the ranking player in the United States (and also an honorary Admiral in the Traveller navy). This win is made more significant by the fact that the program's creator, Professor Douglas Lenat of Stanford University's Heuristic Programming Project, had never played this game before, nor any miniatures battle game of this type."</p>Airhead wrote:I'm waving the BS flag.
We don't have an AI that you can simply insert the manual and have it design a fleet for you. Doug had to do a lot of work to turn the rules into something that the AI could work with. That alone would impart some sort of bias.***
The fact that he was able to make a stationary torpedo mine field win is just showing the game designers the weakness of their game. If the objective was changed to "get past the opponents fleet" the enemy would just go...crmanriq2010-02-12T15:09:23ZRe: Pathfinder Society®: General Discussion: Pathfinder Society Rules v2.1 FAQcrmanriqhttp://paizo.com/threads/rzs2k7u6&page=3?Pathfinder-Society-Rules-v21-FAQ#1212010-01-05T19:34:53Z2010-01-05T19:34:53Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">Joshua J. Frost wrote:</div><blockquote><p> The intent of the rule is to prevent folks from circumventing (a) the fact that we don't allow any Leadership-feat-type effects and (b) the purchasing and acquisition of items and wealth system.</p>
<p>The following are restorative effects that "fix" a character without touching either of the categories above:</p>
<p>Atonement, break enchantment, breath of life, clone, dispel magic (potentially), freedom, heal, raise dead, etc.</p>
<p>The following create things that can be used during the scenario but end at the conclusion of the scenario, thus preventing the circumvention of the categories above:</p>
<p>Bless water, create undead, curse water, fabricate, etc.</p>
<p>The following are spells that generally affect NPCs when cast by a PC so whether or not their effects are still in play isn't relevant to the greater rules:</p>
<p>Chill touch, contagion, disintegrate, feeblemind, flesh to stone, hallow, imprisonment, insanity, etc. </blockquote><p>Joshua,
<p>Thanks. Am I correct in assuming then that non-spell effects (ie Command Undead feat) also cease their effect at the end of the adventure?</p>
<p>I think the PSGOP would be well served by the inclusion of a paragraph something along the lines of: </p>
<p>"A character may only take out of the adventure gold or items specifically stated in the record. Spells, feats, or other effects that would create an item or beneficial effect that persists beyond the adventure will not do so. This is to prevent the creation of wealth not awarded in the adventure, which can upset the already difficult balance inherent in a shared world experience."</p>Joshua J. Frost wrote:The intent of the rule is to prevent folks from circumventing (a) the fact that we don't allow any Leadership-feat-type effects and (b) the purchasing and acquisition of items and wealth system.
The following are restorative effects that "fix" a character without touching either of the categories above:
Atonement, break enchantment, breath of life, clone, dispel magic (potentially), freedom, heal, raise dead, etc.
The following create things that can be used during...crmanriq2010-01-05T19:34:53ZRe: Pathfinder Society®: General Discussion: Pathfinder Society Rules v2.1 FAQcrmanriqhttp://paizo.com/threads/rzs2k7u6&page=3?Pathfinder-Society-Rules-v21-FAQ#1192010-01-05T18:29:17Z2010-01-05T18:29:17Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">Austin Morgan wrote:</div><blockquote> <div class="messageboard-quotee">crmanriq wrote:</div><blockquote></p>
<p>Atonement</p>
<p></blockquote><p>Now, I'm not the most knowledgeable person with respect to the rules, but I do believe Atonement modifies your character permanently. Therefore, the 'spell' doesn't last until the end of game (instantaneous, correct?), but the modification for your character are permanent, and thus is still in place after the end of the scenario.
<p>But I may be wrong :) </blockquote><p>Yes. Almost my entire post is in regards to INSTANTANEOUS spells. Animate Dead and Atonement are both Instantaneous duration spells. Neither spell is still active at the end of the scenario.Austin Morgan wrote:crmanriq wrote:Atonement
Now, I'm not the most knowledgeable person with respect to the rules, but I do believe Atonement modifies your character permanently. Therefore, the 'spell' doesn't last until the end of game (instantaneous, correct?), but the modification for your character are permanent, and thus is still in place after the end of the scenario. But I may be wrong :) Yes. Almost my entire post is in regards to INSTANTANEOUS spells. Animate Dead and Atonement are...crmanriq2010-01-05T18:29:17ZRe: Pathfinder Society®: General Discussion: Pathfinder Society Rules v2.1 FAQcrmanriqhttp://paizo.com/threads/rzs2k7u6&page=3?Pathfinder-Society-Rules-v21-FAQ#1152010-01-05T16:26:49Z2010-01-05T16:17:36Z<p>I understand that any spell that you cast during a scenario ends at the end of the scenario.</p>
<p>I have two questions:</p>
<p>1) Spells with an instantaneous duration. The "ever popular" Animate Dead has an instantaneous duration, and would thus be over by the end of the scenario. Its after effect, the creation of the undead who is now possibly under the control of the caster would seem to be outside of the wording of the rule. Does this after-effect end at the end of the scenario?</p>
<p>2) The Feat "Command Undead" is not a spell, yet creates a lasting effect. Does this effect end at the end of the scenario?</p>
<p>which I guess places me into a third question:</p>
<p>3) If your rule is that both instantaneous duration's effect cease at the end of the scenario and that the feat's effect ends at the end of the scenario, then could this be specified/clarified in the next update of the PSGOP? </p>
<p>Also, how does this effect other instantaneous duration spells like "raise dead"? One would assume that the intent of:
<br />
Spell Duration - Simply put, any spell cast by a PC during a scenario ends at the end of that scenario. This does not apply to conditions a PC may have gained during the course of a scenario." </p>
<p>is not to mean that a character who is raised will fall dead again at the end of the scenario, but if the same standard is applied to both "Raise Dead" and "Animate Dead", then one would affect similar results.</p>
<p>Can or should there be a way to distinguish between instantaneous spells whose effects end at the end of a scenario, and spells whose effects do not end?</p>
<p>Given that the PSGOP has been modified slightly now to include the allowance of an Alchemist to create enduring magical effects, I'm still not entirely sure what your answer to 1 and 2 are, and am asking this as a clarification.</p>
<p>Many Thanks.</p>
<p>Addendum: Looking at spells with duration "Instantaneous" that might have implications if their effect ends at end-of-scenario, I also find (partial list):</p>
<p>Atonement
<br />
Bless Water
<br />
Break Enchantment
<br />
Breath of Life
<br />
Chill Touch
<br />
Clone
<br />
Contagion
<br />
Create Undead
<br />
Curse Water
<br />
Disintegrate
<br />
Dispel Magic
<br />
Fabricate
<br />
Feeblemind
<br />
Flesh to Stone
<br />
Freedom
<br />
Hallow
<br />
Heal
<br />
Imprisonment
<br />
Insanity
<br />
...</p>I understand that any spell that you cast during a scenario ends at the end of the scenario.
I have two questions:
1) Spells with an instantaneous duration. The "ever popular" Animate Dead has an instantaneous duration, and would thus be over by the end of the scenario. Its after effect, the creation of the undead who is now possibly under the control of the caster would seem to be outside of the wording of the rule. Does this after-effect end at the end of the scenario?
2) The Feat...crmanriq2010-01-05T16:17:36ZRe: Pathfinder Society®: General Discussion: Pathfinder Society Rules v2.1 FAQcrmanriqhttp://paizo.com/threads/rzs2k7u6&page=3?Pathfinder-Society-Rules-v21-FAQ#1072009-12-30T20:28:43Z2009-12-30T20:28:43Z<p>In PFS, can a character leave a feat slot open to fill at his next level?</p>
<p>Example - Could a paladin not take a feat at 5th level, anticipating taking the Lunge feat when he would qualify for it at 6th level?</p>
<p>This would in effect handicap him for one level (not filling a feat slot that he was entitled to fill) in order to not wait one level past the time that he would qualify for that feat.</p>In PFS, can a character leave a feat slot open to fill at his next level?
Example - Could a paladin not take a feat at 5th level, anticipating taking the Lunge feat when he would qualify for it at 6th level?
This would in effect handicap him for one level (not filling a feat slot that he was entitled to fill) in order to not wait one level past the time that he would qualify for that feat.crmanriq2009-12-30T20:28:43ZRe: Round 2 - Summoner and Witch: Eidolon Questioncrmanriqhttp://paizo.com/threads/rzs2kap0?Eidolon-Question#182009-12-30T14:59:35Z2009-12-30T14:59:35Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">Joseph Raiten wrote:</div><blockquote><p> or maybe adding in a rake evolution instead of or in addition to rend... but that would be: claw, claw, rend, rake</p>
<p>and i would not allow attacking with hind legs... how would they stay standing? with both front legs and back legs swinging at the target? </blockquote><p>Who says it needs to stay standing? The serpentine evolution has no legs, yet it can make attacks. It could even take a limbs(arms) or limbs(legs) evolution and then take claws and attack.
<p>I think the problem is that you are trying to look at the eidolon as if it were an animal that you have seen before. It isn't. It's a "fantastical creature". Try to imagine something with a prehensile body, multiple sets of tails, arms, legs, any of which can be used for multiple purposes. Perhaps it pounces, resting on a pseudopodal protuberance from the body and attacks with all limbs. Perhaps any tail it has is actually forward facing. Perhaps it has multiple tails facing in cardinal directions. Perhaps it doesn't even have a head, but has a gaping maw in its body with razor sharp teeth.</p>Joseph Raiten wrote:or maybe adding in a rake evolution instead of or in addition to rend... but that would be: claw, claw, rend, rake
and i would not allow attacking with hind legs... how would they stay standing? with both front legs and back legs swinging at the target?
Who says it needs to stay standing? The serpentine evolution has no legs, yet it can make attacks. It could even take a limbs(arms) or limbs(legs) evolution and then take claws and attack. I think the problem is that you...crmanriq2009-12-30T14:59:35ZRe: Round 2 - Summoner and Witch: Eidolon Questioncrmanriqhttp://paizo.com/threads/rzs2kap0?Eidolon-Question#162009-12-30T13:09:56Z2009-12-30T13:09:56Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">deathmaster wrote:</div><blockquote> <div class="messageboard-quotee">crmanriq wrote:</div><blockquote><p> I missed that. That makes claws much much better, given that spending one point on it gives you two primary attacks.
</p>
</blockquote>I would hope your GM would say no to buying claw attacks for the back legs, it ranks up there with a biped buying claws for their feet. </blockquote><p>Given that the eidolon is a "fantastic" creature, capable of having multiple pairs of arms, legs, or even multiple tails, and that there is no limitation in the rules that claw attacks are limited to the limbs(arms) evolution, I don't see any expectation that a claw attack should be limited to just arms.
<p>While the final version of the Summoner class may include such a limitation, it does not currently exist as far as I can find in the PDF, or in Jason's online updates.</p>deathmaster wrote:crmanriq wrote:I missed that. That makes claws much much better, given that spending one point on it gives you two primary attacks.
I would hope your GM would say no to buying claw attacks for the back legs, it ranks up there with a biped buying claws for their feet. Given that the eidolon is a "fantastic" creature, capable of having multiple pairs of arms, legs, or even multiple tails, and that there is no limitation in the rules that claw attacks are limited to the...crmanriq2009-12-30T13:09:56ZRe: Round 2 - Summoner and Witch: Eidolon Questioncrmanriqhttp://paizo.com/threads/rzs2kap0?Eidolon-Question#102009-12-30T01:58:46Z2009-12-30T01:57:11Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">Ceefood wrote:</div><blockquote> remember claws are primary attacks now not secondary - it was fixed </blockquote><p>I missed that. That makes claws much much better, given that spending one point on it gives you two primary attacks.
<p>It's not on the sticky for the summoner update. Do you have a link to the update on that?</p>Ceefood wrote:remember claws are primary attacks now not secondary - it was fixed
I missed that. That makes claws much much better, given that spending one point on it gives you two primary attacks. It's not on the sticky for the summoner update. Do you have a link to the update on that?crmanriq2009-12-30T01:57:11ZRe: Round 2 - Summoner and Witch: Eidolon Questioncrmanriqhttp://paizo.com/threads/rzs2kap0?Eidolon-Question#72009-12-29T19:39:11Z2009-12-29T19:39:11Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">Joseph Raiten wrote:</div><blockquote> <div class="messageboard-quotee">crmanriq wrote:</div><blockquote> <div class="messageboard-quotee">cp wrote:</div><blockquote><p> In several places regarding the eidolon it states that the eidolon must have appropriate appendages, to use an evolution pool. </p>
<p>Usually I would say - arems are necessary. However if you have a tail I would probably allow some weaposn to be used. </blockquote><p>Re-looking at the evolutions, the "arms" evolution states that arms with hands will allow the eidolon to wield weapons. So this is an indirect statement of the requirement.
<p>On further review, it really seems like the pounce evolution combined with multiple claw evolutions (with improved natural attack) might make a formidable melee fighter.</p>
<p>pounce, bite, trip, claw, claw, claw, claw, rend. </blockquote><p>and that combo would cost a bipedal eilodon 8 evo points (6th required to get rend)but can't be given to bipeds ... only quadrapeds ... and then it costs 6 evo points but still won't be complete till 6th... and that is if your dm lets you attack with the back legs... otherwise they will need axtra limbs and that is once again 8 evo...
<p>so you declare a charge using pounce... bite and trip... then take the full attack (this might include another bite and trip) 4 claws and as long as 2 hit a rend. </p>
<p>but once again the rend won't come till 6th... </p>
<p>impressive indead </blockquote><p>Points
<p>(bite) - free with quad
<br />
(limbs) x 2 - free with quad
<br />
claws (front legs) - 1 pt.
<br />
claws (rear legs) - 1 pt.
<br />
trip - 1 pt.
<br />
pounce - 1 pt.
<br />
improved damage (claw) - 1pt.</p>
<p>So far we're only at level 3 (5 points), which gives:</p>
<p>pounce, bite, trip, claw, claw, claw, claw</p>
<p>4th level - add another limbs for 2 pts (+10 speed)
<br />
5th level - add another claw attack </p>
<p>pouce, bite (1d6), trip, claw, claw, claw, claw, claw, claw (1d4)</p>
<p>6th level - add large or rend, remove trip?</p>
<p>pouce, bite (1d8), trip, claw, claw, claw, claw, claw, claw (1d6)</p>
<p>hmm. Only problem is that the claws are secondary attacks, and even with multiattack, they are still at -2 with 1/2 strength bonus.</p>
<p>If we could go a biped, </p>
<p>We could go:</p>
<p>Slam (arms) - 1pt. Primary attack (1d8)
<br />
Bite - 1pt. Primary attack (1d6)
<br />
Claw (legs) - free
<br />
Tail - 1pt.
<br />
Sting - 1pt. Primary attack(1d4)
<br />
Improved damage (sting) - 1pt</p>
<p>3rd level:
<br />
Bite, slam, claw, claw, sting</p>
<p>If we go serpentine</p>
<p>We could go</p>
<p>bite - free
<br />
tail slap - free (secondary)
<br />
sting (tail) - 1pt.
<br />
tail - 1pt.
<br />
sting (tail) - 1pt
<br />
improved damage (sting) - 1pt.
<br />
tail slap - 1pt. (secondary)</p>
<p>3rd level:
<br />
bite, sting, sting, tail slap, tail slap</p>
<p>The nice thing about the sting and bite is that at 7th level, we can pick up poison, and do multiple poison attacks. We can take improved damage (poison) and up the damage to d6's. I'm not sure whether or not it's worth the 2 extra points to make it CON damage.</p>
<p>I keep coming back to the serpentine as a viable form. Especially if we take weapon finesse as a feat, using dex for attacks on natural weapons.</p>Joseph Raiten wrote:crmanriq wrote: cp wrote:In several places regarding the eidolon it states that the eidolon must have appropriate appendages, to use an evolution pool.
Usually I would say - arems are necessary. However if you have a tail I would probably allow some weaposn to be used.
Re-looking at the evolutions, the "arms" evolution states that arms with hands will allow the eidolon to wield weapons. So this is an indirect statement of the requirement. On further review, it really...crmanriq2009-12-29T19:39:11ZRe: Round 2 - Summoner and Witch: Eidolon Questioncrmanriqhttp://paizo.com/threads/rzs2kap0?Eidolon-Question#42009-12-29T18:39:54Z2009-12-29T18:37:41Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">cp wrote:</div><blockquote><p> In several places regarding the eidolon it states that the eidolon must have appropriate appendages, to use an evolution pool. </p>
<p>Usually I would say - arems are necessary. However if you have a tail I would probably allow some weaposn to be used. </blockquote><p>Re-looking at the evolutions, the "arms" evolution states that arms with hands will allow the eidolon to wield weapons. So this is an indirect statement of the requirement.
<p>On further review, it really seems like the pounce evolution combined with multiple claw evolutions (with improved natural attack) might make a formidable melee fighter.</p>
<p>pounce, bite, trip, claw, claw, claw, claw, rend.</p>cp wrote:In several places regarding the eidolon it states that the eidolon must have appropriate appendages, to use an evolution pool.
Usually I would say - arems are necessary. However if you have a tail I would probably allow some weaposn to be used.
Re-looking at the evolutions, the "arms" evolution states that arms with hands will allow the eidolon to wield weapons. So this is an indirect statement of the requirement. On further review, it really seems like the pounce evolution...crmanriq2009-12-29T18:37:41ZRe: Round 2 - Summoner and Witch: UPDATE - Summonercrmanriqhttp://paizo.com/threads/rzs2k7tg&page=12?UPDATE-Summoner#5832009-12-23T20:30:18Z2009-12-23T20:30:18Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">Malikor wrote:</div><blockquote><p> About the removal of the sentance that says "cast as a standard action" you have to remember, that a spell-like ability is already a standard action unless otherwise noted (it does not meantion this in the Pathfinder RPG book, but it does in the Bestiary). So what they are doing is removing extranious information, streamlinging everything, like they have done in the PRPG book in the first place.</p>
<p>I too think maybe a summoner's summon monster spells and spell-like abilities should have the Extend spell feat applied to them automatically. </blockquote><p>from the PRD:
</p>
"A spell-like ability has a casting time of 1 standard action unless noted otherwise in the ability or spell description. In all other ways, a spell-like ability functions just like a spell." </p>
<p>So if the spell is listed as having a casting time of 1 round, the spell-like-ability will also have a 1 round casting time.</p>Malikor wrote:About the removal of the sentance that says "cast as a standard action" you have to remember, that a spell-like ability is already a standard action unless otherwise noted (it does not meantion this in the Pathfinder RPG book, but it does in the Bestiary). So what they are doing is removing extranious information, streamlinging everything, like they have done in the PRPG book in the first place.
I too think maybe a summoner's summon monster spells and spell-like abilities...crmanriq2009-12-23T20:30:18ZRound 2 - Summoner and Witch: Eidolon Questioncrmanriqhttp://paizo.com/threads/rzs2kap0?Eidolon-Question#12012-11-15T22:21:01Z2009-12-23T20:13:56Z<p>1) "An eidolon secretes toxic venom, gaining a poison attack. Pick a
<br />
bite or sting attack. Whenever the eidolon makes a successful attack of the selected type, the target is poisoned."</p>
<p>Can an eidolon with the poison evolution apply their own poison to weapons?</p>
<p>2) "Weapon Training (Ex): An eidolon learns to use a weapon, gaining Simple Weapon Proficiency as a bonus feat. If 1 additional evolution point is spent, it gains proficiency with all martial weapons as well."</p>
<p>There does not seem to be a requirement that the eidolon possess the Arms evolution in order to wield weapons. Is there such a requirement, or is the ever-changing form of the eidolon assumed to be adaptable enough to wield without arms?</p>1) "An eidolon secretes toxic venom, gaining a poison attack. Pick a
bite or sting attack. Whenever the eidolon makes a successful attack of the selected type, the target is poisoned."
Can an eidolon with the poison evolution apply their own poison to weapons?
2) "Weapon Training (Ex): An eidolon learns to use a weapon, gaining Simple Weapon Proficiency as a bonus feat. If 1 additional evolution point is spent, it gains proficiency with all martial weapons as well."
There does not seem to...crmanriq2009-12-23T20:13:56ZRe: Technology: Amazon Kindlecrmanriqhttp://paizo.com/threads/rzs2k8ux?Amazon-Kindle#72009-12-11T13:53:16Z2009-12-11T13:53:15Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">brock wrote:</div><blockquote> <div class="messageboard-quotee">Enevhar Aldarion wrote:</div><blockquote> <div class="messageboard-quotee">Can I Call My Guy Drizzt? wrote:</div><blockquote> <div class="messageboard-quotee">Enevhar Aldarion wrote:</div><blockquote> I have thought about the Kindle before, but I want a reader where the screen size matches the size of a standard gaming book, 8.5" x 11". I have yet to find an e-book reader that has that large of a screen though. I do not like scrolling left and right or up and down on my pc screen to see an entire page and I do not want to have to do the same thing on an e-book reader either. </blockquote>You'd probably be looking at a Tablet PC right now. I don't know of any eBook readers with a screen that size. </blockquote>Yeah, that is what I was afraid of, because of the cost. But I would rather have a tablet pc than have to get and lug around a notebook pc or a netbook. </blockquote>iRex DR1000S is available now and Plastic Logic are releasing a reader in that size category next year. The tablet PC may well be cheaper as the iRex is £600 at the moment. </blockquote><p>I bought a Kindle DX about 2 weeks ago. (well, I got it a week ago as a birthday/xmas present) I'm still deciding whether or not I want to keep it.
<p>It's slightly smaller than a 8.5x11 sheet of paper. For straight text, it's pretty awesome.</p>
<p>For PDF's - It will shrink the pdf of core rules or bestiary (or any other pdf game book I have) to fit the screen. For some games with smaller text (pathfinder being one), this creates readability issues. You can turn the screen to landscape mode, and the text will be pretty close to actual book size. You cannot zoom in either mode. (The pdf support is pretty basic).</p>
<p>Some pdf books take much longer to switch pages on than others. WOTC 4e books switch pages fairly quickly, but Paizo books are much slower (3-5 seconds?) I believe it is because of the extensive graphics that Paizo puts in. (I love the graphics, but in this instance, it might be nicer to not have quite so much).</p>
<p>Other general remarks:</p>
<p>Directory structure. I really wish that it wasn't a flat directory structure (you can put things in subdirectories, but they still all appear on the same table of contents.) Right now, my home page table of contents is 14 pages longs. You can order alphabetically, or by author or by most recent, but it's still a lot of paging to get anywhere you want to go. </p>
<p>Web browser. There is a free wireless broadband web browser. It's slow. It's flaky. It can't go to a lot of sites. (Can't visit wizards.com at all.) </p>
<p>Speed. This thing is slow. Going to d20srd.org, it's practically locked up. Sometimes it does seem to freeze for a long time on graphics intensive pdf's. </p>
<p>Screensaver. If you don't touch any buttons for about 10 minutes, it goes to screensaver. This makes no sense as it only requires power to change pages, not to maintain pages, on e-ink. You can't turn off the screensaver. I'd like it a lot more if I could simply set it down and come back in an hour or tomorrow to the exact same screen. Instead it cycles through a bunch of artsy greyscale images. (Like I really want Jane Austin on the cover of any book I'm reading...)</p>
<p>I really want to like it. I've got all my shadowrun, paizo, wotc and deadlands books on it. This is the largest screen currently available. I just wish:</p>
<p>1) Get rid of flat file system.
<br />
2) Ditch the screensaver.
<br />
3) Put mozilla on the thing. It's running linux fercrissakes.
<br />
4) Put the linux pdf reader on it. It would be better than what it currently has.</p>brock wrote:Enevhar Aldarion wrote: Can I Call My Guy Drizzt? wrote: Enevhar Aldarion wrote: I have thought about the Kindle before, but I want a reader where the screen size matches the size of a standard gaming book, 8.5" x 11". I have yet to find an e-book reader that has that large of a screen though. I do not like scrolling left and right or up and down on my pc screen to see an entire page and I do not want to have to do the same thing on an e-book reader either.
You'd probably be...crmanriq2009-12-11T13:53:15ZRe: 4th Edition: PFS modules for LFR MYRE??crmanriqhttp://paizo.com/threads/rzs2k6xt?PFS-modules-for-LFR-MYRE#32009-11-29T17:51:04Z2009-11-29T17:51:03Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">Greyson wrote:</div><blockquote> <div class="messageboard-quotee">crmanriq wrote:</div><blockquote>Has anyone done any conversion work on PFS modules to LFR format?</blockquote>I took <i>Edge of Anarchy</i>, "converted" it to 4E, broke it into several MYRE1-1 adventures and set it in Baldur's Gate to make the whole affair a Living Forgotten Realms story arc. It worked out well and we had a lot of fun running two or three tables of each part. </blockquote><p>Cool. Any problems from RPGA with the "no reskinning" rule in the MYRE adventure guidelines? (Just noticed that after I posted.)Greyson wrote:crmanriq wrote:Has anyone done any conversion work on PFS modules to LFR format?
I took Edge of Anarchy, "converted" it to 4E, broke it into several MYRE1-1 adventures and set it in Baldur's Gate to make the whole affair a Living Forgotten Realms story arc. It worked out well and we had a lot of fun running two or three tables of each part. Cool. Any problems from RPGA with the "no reskinning" rule in the MYRE adventure guidelines? (Just noticed that after I posted.)crmanriq2009-11-29T17:51:03Z4th Edition: PFS modules for LFR MYRE??crmanriqhttp://paizo.com/threads/rzs2k6xt?PFS-modules-for-LFR-MYRE#12012-11-15T22:16:45Z2009-11-28T22:52:03Z<p>Okay, cryptic title. </p>
<p>Here's the gist. Living Forgotten Realms allows DM's to run their own adventures for the shared world. I'd love to be able to run some of the Pathfinder Society modules as LFR adventures. (Kind of hoping to bring people over to paizo by showing them how well written Paizo's adventures are.)</p>
<p>Has anyone done any conversion work on PFS modules to LFR format?</p>
<p>Thanks</p>Okay, cryptic title.
Here's the gist. Living Forgotten Realms allows DM's to run their own adventures for the shared world. I'd love to be able to run some of the Pathfinder Society modules as LFR adventures. (Kind of hoping to bring people over to paizo by showing them how well written Paizo's adventures are.)
Has anyone done any conversion work on PFS modules to LFR format?
Thankscrmanriq2009-11-28T22:52:03ZRe: Pathfinder Society®: General Discussion: Why should I/shouldn't I allow you to re-play scenarios?crmanriqhttp://paizo.com/threads/rzs2jxd3&page=2?Why-should-Ishouldnt-I-allow-you-to-replay#812009-09-04T20:39:53Z2009-09-04T20:39:52Z<p>Preface: I've played some Living Greyhawk, a lot of Living Forgotten Realms, some Pathfinder Society and have run some of each of the three.</p>
<p>Cons:
<br />
1) Players know what's coming and might metagame, thus reducing the experience for all.
<br />
2) Players not wishing to metagame might coast, allowing those who haven't played the scenario to be the active participants. </p>
<p>Pros:</p>
<p>1) There are relatively few PFS scenarios, and it is becoming harder and harder to do a regular PFS game where someone hasn't played in Scenario X.
<br />
2) Sometimes having a player replay a scenario means the difference between 4 people getting to play and 3 people going home without having played at all.
<br />
3) Allowing people to play the scenario with multiple characters allows someone to not feel locked into one character.
<br />
4) Answering Cons#1 - There is no restriction on who can read a scenario before playing in it. A player who will metagame by repeating a scenario is probably similarly likely to do so by either reading spoilers or the scenario itself.
<br />
5) Answer to Cons#2 - Perhaps not so bad a thing. This might encourage newer players (those who haven't played in a given scenario) to be more active roleplayers and that the experienced players might not dominate the table.
<br />
6) If the goal is to get people playing PFS in larger and larger numbers, anything that enables them to do so should be seen as "a good thing". Rules that prevent players from playing should be seen as "a bad thing."</p>Preface: I've played some Living Greyhawk, a lot of Living Forgotten Realms, some Pathfinder Society and have run some of each of the three.
Cons:
1) Players know what's coming and might metagame, thus reducing the experience for all.
2) Players not wishing to metagame might coast, allowing those who haven't played the scenario to be the active participants.
Pros:
1) There are relatively few PFS scenarios, and it is becoming harder and harder to do a regular PFS game where someone hasn't...crmanriq2009-09-04T20:39:52ZRe: Rules Questions: Undefined Featscrmanriqhttp://paizo.com/threads/rzs2jvcx?Undefined-Feats#62009-08-20T20:05:29Z2009-08-20T20:05:28Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">James Jacobs wrote:</div><blockquote> <div class="messageboard-quotee">crmanriq wrote:</div><blockquote> In the Bonus Bestiary, Ascomoid has Improved Overrun, while not meeting the prerequisite of having Power Attack.</blockquote><p>The monsters in the Bonus Bestiary were created long before we had the format down for the actual Bestiary, and even before we had all of the actual rules of the RPG itself locked down. So there's a certain amount of inaccuracy in the Bonus Bestiary; I'm pretty sure that all of these monsters will make it in to the Bestiary 2 next summer though, at which point the errors will be tended to.
<p>Now, that said, the case of the Ascomoid's Improved Overrun is NOT an error. It's a bonus feat (indicated as such by the superscript B after the feat). As a creature without an Intelligence score, an Ascomoid doesn't get feats or skill ranks; we gave it Improved Overrun as a bonus feat because it fits so well with its role and flavor. As a bonus feat, it doesn't need to qualify for it with prerequisites; it just has the feat. No strings attached.
<br />
</blockquote><p>Again. Thanks!James Jacobs wrote:crmanriq wrote: In the Bonus Bestiary, Ascomoid has Improved Overrun, while not meeting the prerequisite of having Power Attack.
The monsters in the Bonus Bestiary were created long before we had the format down for the actual Bestiary, and even before we had all of the actual rules of the RPG itself locked down. So there's a certain amount of inaccuracy in the Bonus Bestiary; I'm pretty sure that all of these monsters will make it in to the Bestiary 2 next summer though,...crmanriq2009-08-20T20:05:28ZRe: Rules Questions: Undefined Featscrmanriqhttp://paizo.com/threads/rzs2jvcx?Undefined-Feats#42009-08-20T19:47:25Z2009-08-20T19:47:25Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">James Jacobs wrote:</div><blockquote> <div class="messageboard-quotee">crmanriq wrote:</div><blockquote><p> Improved Natural Armor, Improved Natural Attack are both listed as possible feats for animal companions.</p>
<p>There is no rules text for either of these feats.</p>
<p>Should we assume the same text as 3.5? </blockquote>Yeah; those feats are in the Bestiary; it does indicate as much in the "Animal Feats" section on page 53 of the PRPG. I'm relatively certain that they work exactly they way they do in the 3.5 SRD, in any case. </blockquote><p>Thanks for the quick answer. Followup:
<p>In the Bonus Bestiary, Ascomoid has Improved Overrun, while not meeting the prerequisite of having Power Attack.</p>
<p>Is this an exception for Ascomoid, Creatures in general (it's listed as a possible feat for animal companions), or simply an oversight?</p>James Jacobs wrote:crmanriq wrote:Improved Natural Armor, Improved Natural Attack are both listed as possible feats for animal companions.
There is no rules text for either of these feats.
Should we assume the same text as 3.5?
Yeah; those feats are in the Bestiary; it does indicate as much in the "Animal Feats" section on page 53 of the PRPG. I'm relatively certain that they work exactly they way they do in the 3.5 SRD, in any case. Thanks for the quick answer. Followup: In the Bonus...crmanriq2009-08-20T19:47:25ZRules Questions: Undefined Featscrmanriqhttp://paizo.com/threads/rzs2jvcx?Undefined-Feats#12012-11-15T22:07:45Z2009-08-20T19:36:24Z<p>Improved Natural Armor, Improved Natural Attack are both listed as possible feats for animal companions.</p>
<p>There is no rules text for either of these feats.</p>
<p>Should we assume the same text as 3.5?</p>Improved Natural Armor, Improved Natural Attack are both listed as possible feats for animal companions.
There is no rules text for either of these feats.
Should we assume the same text as 3.5?crmanriq2009-08-20T19:36:24ZRe: Pathfinder Society®: General Discussion: The Mr. Chuckles Alternativecrmanriqhttp://paizo.com/threads/rzs2juax?The-Mr-Chuckles-Alternative#32009-08-14T20:48:29Z2009-08-14T20:48:28Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">hogarth wrote:</div><blockquote><p> I'm not sure what the problem is in the first place. Why don't you just buy +1 studded leather barding for your animal companion? It has an armor check penalty of 0, so any animal can wear it with no penalty (whether the animal is proficient with barding or not).</p>
<p>But assuming you can have an animal with an Int of 3 (hard to say without looking at the Bestiary), it should be legal, I think. </blockquote><p>Duh. No armor check penalty.
<p>That means I don't need "Armor Proficiency (light)" and can spend the feat on something really fun like "Eschew Materials" &lt;g&gt;</p>hogarth wrote:I'm not sure what the problem is in the first place. Why don't you just buy +1 studded leather barding for your animal companion? It has an armor check penalty of 0, so any animal can wear it with no penalty (whether the animal is proficient with barding or not).
But assuming you can have an animal with an Int of 3 (hard to say without looking at the Bestiary), it should be legal, I think.
Duh. No armor check penalty. That means I don't need "Armor Proficiency (light)" and can...crmanriq2009-08-14T20:48:28ZRe: Pathfinder RPG: General Discussion: Inevitable Discussion: Clerics Lost Heavy Armor Prof.crmanriqhttp://paizo.com/threads/rzs2jtun&page=3?Inevitable-Discussion-Clerics-Lost-Heavy#1372009-08-24T09:31:00Z2009-08-12T15:21:45Z<p>Here's something I'd like to throw out.</p>
<p>I played a cleric during playtest. Our playtest group leader wrote regular reports on what he thought worked, and didn't work.</p>
<p>Nobody in our playtest group thought the beta cleric was in any way overpowered. </p>
<p>How many of those currently praising the removal of heavy armor proficiency from clerics either:</p>
<p>1) playtested a cleric?
<br />
2) currently play a cleric?
<br />
3) plan on playing a cleric in Pathfinder?</p>
<p>One of the few saving graces that cleric's have had was the ability to walk out to the front line and heal the tanks. And then to help hold the line while the tank struggled to his feet. </p>
<p>The argument has been made of "big deal, if you want Heavy Armor, take the feat." Well, at low levels is where the cleric is most vulnerable. Which means taking the feat at low level, which means a first or third level cleric is spending all or half of his feats just to retain the means to do his job, and is now weaker than other members of the party who are already taking feats to define their character.</p>
<p>Fighter: I'm taking a nifty feat so that my charges do X.
<br />
Rogue: I'm taking an awesome feat so that my sneak attack is more effective:
<br />
Wizard: I'm taking a metamagic or item creation feat!
<br />
Cleric: I'm taking armor proficiency (heavy) so that I can survive.</p>
<p>As I said, I playtested a cleric during the beta. I probably won't be playing one in the final version.</p>Here's something I'd like to throw out.
I played a cleric during playtest. Our playtest group leader wrote regular reports on what he thought worked, and didn't work.
Nobody in our playtest group thought the beta cleric was in any way overpowered.
How many of those currently praising the removal of heavy armor proficiency from clerics either:
1) playtested a cleric?
2) currently play a cleric?
3) plan on playing a cleric in Pathfinder?
One of the few saving graces that cleric's have had...crmanriq2009-08-12T15:21:45ZRe: Pathfinder Society GM Discussion: PFS#19: Skeleton Moon [SPOILERS]crmanriqhttp://paizo.com/threads/rzs2jnv5?PFS19-Skeleton-Moon-SPOILERS#112009-07-31T15:39:48Z2009-07-31T15:39:47Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">Deussu wrote:</div><blockquote><p> I personally dislike all save-or-suck money sink monsters with a passion. The cockatrices are easy themselves, but come with a possible money loss of 660gp. And the Society isn't there to help. Great.</p>
<p>I have to say my Halfling bard/ranger was very delighted to kill Sefu, especially after he proved to be one of Aspis. The joke is we had been talking about Aspis from the start and my halfling is paranoid about Aspis in every corner. "I'm sure Aspis is behind this!"</p>
<p>We managed to clear the assassin vine with ease, thanks to our group of extreme summoners. Even an assassin vine will bow down to 2 dire bats and 3 apes. </blockquote><p>The placement of the cocatries at the first encounter of the adventure was unfortunate. I had a player whose wizard was turned to stone on the single hit the cockatrices scored (he rolled a 1 on the die). I allowed him to roleplay his familiar for the rest of the adventure, which made the night a less-than-disaster for him. I was surprised to see that an experienced pathfinder who regarded the trices as pets wouldn't have a supply of stone-to-flesh ointment available for the unavailable accident that his lab assistant might encounter, so I provided such in the lab equipment.
<p>It was somewhat strange running this, as our group will not be playing again before gencon and season 2 begins. Assuming that every PC at the table will undergo a radical change with the season 2 and new pathfinder rules, I was especially inclined to make this a "fun" event, rather than a sour note to end season 1.</p>Deussu wrote:I personally dislike all save-or-suck money sink monsters with a passion. The cockatrices are easy themselves, but come with a possible money loss of 660gp. And the Society isn't there to help. Great.
I have to say my Halfling bard/ranger was very delighted to kill Sefu, especially after he proved to be one of Aspis. The joke is we had been talking about Aspis from the start and my halfling is paranoid about Aspis in every corner. "I'm sure Aspis is behind this!"
We managed to...crmanriq2009-07-31T15:39:47ZRe: General Discussion (Prerelease): Libris Mortis - Quicken Turningcrmanriqhttp://paizo.com/threads/rzs2jrdt?Libris-Mortis-Quicken-Turning#92009-07-17T18:16:32Z2009-07-17T18:16:31Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">Bitter Thorn wrote:</div><blockquote><p> Has anyone played with quickened turning applied to the new channel energy?</p>
<p>If so, how did it play? </blockquote><p>I've played a cleric with quicken turning applied to channel energy.
<p>It really didn't seem overpowered to me, even when using Selective Channeling so that only allies got healed. </p>
<p>In the big fights that really needed healing, it was there to keep usually the tank alive and still be able to do something like bless, or protection from evil. One channel per turn only buys so much, and it wasn't like I was taking anyone out with it, I was simply keeping the team alive.</p>Bitter Thorn wrote:Has anyone played with quickened turning applied to the new channel energy?
If so, how did it play?
I've played a cleric with quicken turning applied to channel energy. It really didn't seem overpowered to me, even when using Selective Channeling so that only allies got healed.
In the big fights that really needed healing, it was there to keep usually the tank alive and still be able to do something like bless, or protection from evil. One channel per turn only buys so...crmanriq2009-07-17T18:16:31ZRe: General Discussion (Prerelease): Pathfinder Roleplaying Literate Preview #10 The Barbariancrmanriqhttp://paizo.com/threads/rzs2jr6h?Pathfinder-Roleplaying-Literate-Preview-10#392009-07-15T11:53:40Z2009-07-15T11:53:39Z<p>Re: Intimidating Glare</p>
<p>If the fear effects that stacked in the beta still stack, this could prove to be an overwhelming ability. </p>
<p>Round 1: Attack. Move Action Glare (Shaken for X rounds)
<br />
Round 2: Attack. Move Action Glare (Shaken becomes frightened and will try to flee)
<br />
Round 3: (If opponent still present.) Attack. Move Action Glare (Frightened becomes Panicked and will cower if it cannot flee)</p>Re: Intimidating Glare
If the fear effects that stacked in the beta still stack, this could prove to be an overwhelming ability.
Round 1: Attack. Move Action Glare (Shaken for X rounds)
Round 2: Attack. Move Action Glare (Shaken becomes frightened and will try to flee)
Round 3: (If opponent still present.) Attack. Move Action Glare (Frightened becomes Panicked and will cower if it cannot flee)crmanriq2009-07-15T11:53:39ZRe: Announcements: Let Your Retail Store Know That You Plan To Buy The Pathfinder RPG Core Rulebook From Them!crmanriqhttp://paizo.com/threads/rzs2jpo5?Let-Your-Retail-Store-Know-That-You-Plan-To#92009-07-02T12:52:01Z2009-07-02T12:52:00Z<p>Last week, when I heard that the pdf would be priced at $10 (okay, $9.99), the first thing I did was tell my local store owner that I would be able to buy the book directly from him.</p>
<p>With his discount to people who pre-order and pre-pay, I will end up paying just about the same for book and pdf that I would by subscribing at Paizo and getting the book for free. </p>
<p>But this allows me to support the store that I spend so much (too much) time in.</p>
<p>Thanks.</p>Last week, when I heard that the pdf would be priced at $10 (okay, $9.99), the first thing I did was tell my local store owner that I would be able to buy the book directly from him.
With his discount to people who pre-order and pre-pay, I will end up paying just about the same for book and pdf that I would by subscribing at Paizo and getting the book for free.
But this allows me to support the store that I spend so much (too much) time in.
Thanks.crmanriq2009-07-02T12:52:00ZRe: Pathfinder Campaign Setting: General Discussion: Cleric/Paladin of a Dead God (Aroden)crmanriqhttp://paizo.com/threads/rzs2joys?Cleric-Paladin-of-a-Dead-God#202010-01-07T06:46:41Z2009-06-24T12:23:38Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">Elyza wrote:</div><blockquote> <div class="messageboard-quotee">Dogbert wrote:</div><blockquote><p> Quoting the PF Campaign Setting: <i>"Some paladins serve Abadar, Irori, or Shelyn, but paladins who serve no specific god are actually more common."</i> which means a paladin of Aroden is still pretty much fair game, if that's your actual calling... I mean, people still study careers like Art's History even now so why not? (lol j/k for those with an actual major in that).</p>
<p>Clergy, however, is another matter entirely, as golarian clerics require a functional, specific god so yeah, like Gamer Girrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrl said, the remains of Aroden's clergy are nowadays powerless and resorting to arcane trinkets. </blockquote><p>I would say both clerics and paladins are allowed. This is how I see it. All religions are hierarchical. There is a direct "line of faith" to the top, but to get actual favors, the priest asks of the bishop, the bishop asks of the arch bishop, etc. So too must be the distribution of energy and power. No one consciousness is going to be able to deal with thousands or millions of petitioners for power at the same time, especially if they all want to do it at dawn. Therefore, the power distribution going down the chain would be deity, immortals, celestials, then clerics. The immortals and maybe even the more powerful celestials would be able to regenerate their own raw positive energy, like a sorcerer who regenerates by sleeping. Then, there is the faith energy coming up the chain from clerics and followers which is converted into refined spell energy. This would be naturally less than normal, so the celestials and immortals will have to work harder for a while to "finance" the church's power pyramid. But, they would be able to empower a select few who stand out and generate the faith.
<p>So Aroden has died. Many of those in the upper chain who served him might have also been hunted and slaughtered. But, if even just a few have survived, they could start rebuilding the church with a few chosen mortals. With "Imbue Spell Ability" or higher versions... </blockquote><p>Not to bring in 4e to the argument, but this is also in issue in the LFR campaign setting, with clerics and paladins of Mystra. (LFR has recently specifically ruled out both, but their error is not germane to my post &lt;g&gt;).
<p>I can very much see a player/character taking this position:</p>
<p>"When I entered the service of my god, I pledged my sword, my life and my honor in her service. Such an oath is not to be broken or amended. I do not know if my mistress is truly dead, or simply slumbering, waiting to rise again. I do know that for all the days of my life I will serve her. It is for theologians to debate where my powers come from, if not from her. I see it as a sign that she yet lives. Others may speculate to the theoretical nature of divine power, and bonds that cannot be broken. Yet even if she is truly gone, and she no longer has power to give me, my lady had allies and friends among the deities, and I suspect that they too might be honoring her by allowing me to act in her name."</p>Elyza wrote:Dogbert wrote:Quoting the PF Campaign Setting: "Some paladins serve Abadar, Irori, or Shelyn, but paladins who serve no specific god are actually more common." which means a paladin of Aroden is still pretty much fair game, if that's your actual calling... I mean, people still study careers like Art's History even now so why not? (lol j/k for those with an actual major in that).
Clergy, however, is another matter entirely, as golarian clerics require a functional, specific god so...crmanriq2009-06-24T12:23:38ZRe: 4th Edition: 4e Equivalent of Save or Diecrmanriqhttp://paizo.com/threads/rzs2joqp?4e-Equivalent-of-Save-or-Die#92009-06-23T14:43:04Z2009-06-23T14:34:21Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">Logos wrote:</div><blockquote><p> covered in the first post</p>
<p>forced movement on mounted creatures can drag the mount along for free. </p>
<p>Its the tele on mounted creatures that is more the problem. </blockquote><p>Yes, but the converse of that rule isn't in DMG. It's not in the book, but it's probably an easy houserule that forced movement of the mount will move the rider.
<p>Except that houserules can vary wildly from DM to DM. Especially in something like Living Forgotten Realms.</p>
<p>Looking at the DMG, the interesting question (to me) that comes up is. If you are mounted and knocked prone, you get a saving throw. If you succeed, you stay mounted and are not knocked prone. Do dwarfs get 2 saving throws? One for being a dwarf and one for being mounted. It seems that it would be very tough to knock a mounted dwarf prone.</p>Logos wrote:covered in the first post
forced movement on mounted creatures can drag the mount along for free.
Its the tele on mounted creatures that is more the problem.
Yes, but the converse of that rule isn't in DMG. It's not in the book, but it's probably an easy houserule that forced movement of the mount will move the rider. Except that houserules can vary wildly from DM to DM. Especially in something like Living Forgotten Realms.
Looking at the DMG, the interesting question (to me)...crmanriq2009-06-23T14:34:21ZRe: 4th Edition: 4e Equivalent of Save or Diecrmanriqhttp://paizo.com/threads/rzs2joqp?4e-Equivalent-of-Save-or-Die#62009-06-23T01:58:04Z2009-06-23T01:57:59Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">Logos wrote:</div><blockquote><p> Looked over my 4th edition stuff, and yeah it doesn't seem to be covered.</p>
<p>something interesting i found however is that forced movement specifically bans vertical movement. </p>
<p>that said considering that they get different sections and forced movement seems to me to be slang for push/pull/slide I would say they are different. </p>
<p>Double check what the power itself says (powers that teleport an enemy are pretty rare, whats the name ) and roll with it to the best of your ability? </p>
<p>chances are you might have to deal with 1 tele-dismount a combat which is not so horrible. </p>
<p></blockquote><p>Hmm. I'm thinking about area of effect spells that target all creatures in a burst, and have a "Push the target x squares" effect.
<p>What happens if you hit the rider but not the mount, or vice versa?</p>
<p>This doesn't target one but not the other, per the DMG rule.</p>
<p>And there are a lot of AOE's that force movement. Both for players and monsters.</p>Logos wrote:Looked over my 4th edition stuff, and yeah it doesn't seem to be covered.
something interesting i found however is that forced movement specifically bans vertical movement.
that said considering that they get different sections and forced movement seems to me to be slang for push/pull/slide I would say they are different.
Double check what the power itself says (powers that teleport an enemy are pretty rare, whats the name ) and roll with it to the best of your ability?
...crmanriq2009-06-23T01:57:59ZRe: Website Feedback: We need a Character Optimization forum...crmanriqhttp://paizo.com/threads/rzs2iqm9&page=8?We-need-a-Character-Optimization-forum#3922009-06-22T14:50:51Z2009-06-22T14:50:51Z<p>Just to lighten things up...</p>
<p>I always liked the idea of using Flesh To Salt (from Sandstorm) on my enemies and then selling the salt at 5gp per pound (PHB prices. Okay, even at half price, it's still 2.5 gp per pound of enemy.) </p>
<p>Orc: "What are you looking at?"
<br />
PC: "Just trying to figure out how much you weigh."
<br />
Orc: "I weigh about 200 pounds, why?"
<br />
PC: "Oh, no reason."</p>
<p>I always thought that in a low-treasure campaign, the PC's could make out like bandits.</p>
<p>DM: "You kill the horde of gnolls, but find only a few gold pieces on their bodies."
<br />
PC: "Okay, we cast Flesh to Salt, and break out the sledgehammers and mortars."</p>Just to lighten things up...
I always liked the idea of using Flesh To Salt (from Sandstorm) on my enemies and then selling the salt at 5gp per pound (PHB prices. Okay, even at half price, it's still 2.5 gp per pound of enemy.)
Orc: "What are you looking at?"
PC: "Just trying to figure out how much you weigh."
Orc: "I weigh about 200 pounds, why?"
PC: "Oh, no reason."
I always thought that in a low-treasure campaign, the PC's could make out like bandits.
DM: "You kill the horde of gnolls,...crmanriq2009-06-22T14:50:51ZLegacy of Fire: There's a yellow mold of Texas that my players long to be...crmanriqhttp://paizo.com/threads/rzs2jnv4?Theres-a-yellow-mold-of-Texas-that-my-players#12012-11-15T22:05:24Z2009-06-12T12:33:33Z<p>(Couldn't resist the title.)</p>
<p>So my players got to the alchemy lab in the undercrypt last night and faced the mold. (We're playing a Pathfinderized version of LoF).</p>
<p>Given the mold's -3 to hit with its slam attack, and an even worse grapple, I'm wondering if it is intended that a PC become the moldspeaker, or if it mostly never happens.</p>
<p>I was really hoping that one pc would become infected, but alas - no.</p>
<p>Is there any real advantage to the party to have a moldspeaker in later chapters? Should I retcon one of the pc's getting infected? </p>
<p>Any opinions?</p>
<p>Thanks!</p>(Couldn't resist the title.)
So my players got to the alchemy lab in the undercrypt last night and faced the mold. (We're playing a Pathfinderized version of LoF).
Given the mold's -3 to hit with its slam attack, and an even worse grapple, I'm wondering if it is intended that a PC become the moldspeaker, or if it mostly never happens.
I was really hoping that one pc would become infected, but alas - no.
Is there any real advantage to the party to have a moldspeaker in later chapters?...crmanriq2009-06-12T12:33:33ZRe: 3.5/d20/OGL: 5' step stupidity...crmanriqhttp://paizo.com/threads/rzs2jn5o?5-step-stupidity#432009-06-05T12:35:25Z2009-06-05T12:34:42Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">DigitalMage wrote:</div><blockquote> <div class="messageboard-quotee">Krome wrote:</div><blockquote>And in Pathfinder there is the feat Step Up. Archer takes 5' step, melee guy follows right on his heels.</blockquote>Can you provide a reference for this, it sounds cool and unlike Pursue I am assuming doesn't cost an Action Point. Can it be used more than once per encounter? </blockquote><p><a href="http://pfogc.com/feats#step-up" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">Step Up feat description</a>DigitalMage wrote:Krome wrote:And in Pathfinder there is the feat Step Up. Archer takes 5' step, melee guy follows right on his heels.
Can you provide a reference for this, it sounds cool and unlike Pursue I am assuming doesn't cost an Action Point. Can it be used more than once per encounter? Step Up feat descriptioncrmanriq2009-06-05T12:34:42ZRe: 4th Edition: 4E Dark Sun?crmanriqhttp://paizo.com/threads/rzs2jikc&page=2?4E-Dark-Sun#532010-02-19T16:13:45Z2009-06-04T13:32:41Z<p>I wonder if the first real indication that Dark Sun is getting 4e release will be at athas.org.</p>
<p>Here's the statement that is at the bottom of there webpage (has been for a long time):</p>
<p>"This site is recognized by WotC as the Official Dark Sun site on the internet. Content created on the official website is considered to be derivative work (as it is based on the intellectual property owned by Wizards of the Coast). This means that fan-created add-ons (such as new net books, adventures, etc.) are jointly owned by both Wizards of the Coast and the creator; neither can do anything outside the official website without the permission of the other."</p>
<p>I'm guessing that once Wotc decides to publish new Dark Sun material, this site will lose whatever license they have.</p>I wonder if the first real indication that Dark Sun is getting 4e release will be at athas.org.
Here's the statement that is at the bottom of there webpage (has been for a long time):
"This site is recognized by WotC as the Official Dark Sun site on the internet. Content created on the official website is considered to be derivative work (as it is based on the intellectual property owned by Wizards of the Coast). This means that fan-created add-ons (such as new net books, adventures, etc.)...crmanriq2009-06-04T13:32:41ZRe: Playtest Reports: Darkness spell, anyone read its description?crmanriqhttp://paizo.com/threads/rzs2jmvl?Darkness-spell-anyone-read-its-description#22012-11-15T22:05:09Z2009-06-01T20:07:16Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">Tr0ki wrote:</div><blockquote><p> Hi,
</p>
I'm fairly new to Pathfinder Beta. My DM got the manual for playtesting and he has converted all our PCs and it works fine.
<br />
But, when reading the spells to compare what has changed from the D&amp;D 3.5, we have become quite confused about the description of level 2 Darkness spell. After carefully reading its description in Pathfinder Beta, the conclusion is that the spell creates darkness where there is actually natural darkness. What is more, like in natural darkness, any illumination works fine within it. So what would be the purpose of casting darkness?.
<br />
We here are quite confused and think it is a clear error in the spell description.
<br />
What do you think?</p>
<p>P.D: I've looked for any posts about this issue but found none, and I don't know if this is the correct place to post this. But since the playtesting boards are closed... </blockquote><p>Yes, the spell darkness in the beta is much different than the 3.5 spell darkness (as is Deeper Darkness).
<p>It functions as a negative torch, rather than giving concealment to everything. </p>
<p>I don't have a problem with it, but I don't know if it's going to be the same in the final product.</p>Tr0ki wrote:Hi,
I'm fairly new to Pathfinder Beta. My DM got the manual for playtesting and he has converted all our PCs and it works fine.
But, when reading the spells to compare what has changed from the D&D 3.5, we have become quite confused about the description of level 2 Darkness spell. After carefully reading its description in Pathfinder Beta, the conclusion is that the spell creates darkness where there is actually natural darkness. What is more, like in natural darkness, any...crmanriq2009-06-01T20:07:16ZRe: Gamer Talk: Quirky DM Traitscrmanriqhttp://paizo.com/threads/rzs2jmgd?Quirky-DM-Traits#502009-06-01T12:39:01Z2009-06-01T12:38:50Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">French Wolf wrote:</div><blockquote><p> The only quirk that is kind of personal to me relates to dice. All of mine are the same (chessex fire - red with yellow spots and black numbers). Thats because, I've always said that dice roll randomly and so don't want to have favorite D20s and so on.</p>
<p>I think it's because I teach maths, but the result is whenever I go to a con or gameshop I'm looking for one sort of dice. If I see one I buy it.</p>
<p>Pretty much everyone I have ever played with has different coloured D20s and you occasionally see them flung across the room in frustration when they let the player down.</p>
<p>In a similar vein, the guys I play with have one taboo. Never touch their dice. If you do then the luck runs out. As the DM, they often come over and touch mine after I've rolled particularly well. Of course, I don't mind so everyone is happy.</p>
<p>Cheers </blockquote><p>I've got a similar (recent) die quirk. I was cleaning out my shed about 9 months ago, and came across my original D&amp;D dice from 1984 that had been put away untouched for at least 23 years. I've been using those almost exclusively lately. (except when I need extra d6's or d4's to roll damage).
<p>I would (only slightly) dispute the "dice roll randomly", only from a physics standpoint. If you've ever seen the Gamescience dice booth at Gencon, they have a display showing a stack of d20 from Chessex versus a stack of their d20's. Apparently the polishing tumblers that most dice manufacturers use to smooth out the edges will wear the die faces unevenly, resulting in some faces having more surface area than others. This results in some degree of patterns in the rolls of any one die. It's probably on the order of some numbers coming up a few percent more often than others, and nothing to dispute in a game. (It's probably not at all related to the "this die comes up 20's more than any of my other dice" feeling - that's probably more superstition than reality.)</p>French Wolf wrote:The only quirk that is kind of personal to me relates to dice. All of mine are the same (chessex fire - red with yellow spots and black numbers). Thats because, I've always said that dice roll randomly and so don't want to have favorite D20s and so on.
I think it's because I teach maths, but the result is whenever I go to a con or gameshop I'm looking for one sort of dice. If I see one I buy it.
Pretty much everyone I have ever played with has different coloured D20s and...crmanriq2009-06-01T12:38:50ZRe: Pathfinder Campaign Setting: General Discussion: Paizo TGM Cardscrmanriqhttp://paizo.com/threads/rzs2jmmo?Paizo-TGM-Cards#32009-05-29T19:50:58Z2009-05-29T19:24:12Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">Charles Scholz wrote:</div><blockquote><p> Has anyone made a Paizo version of the TGM Cards? I use them all the time, but they were made for 3.0 and don't fit well with PFRPG.</p>
<p>I tried to make some, but my skills are lacking. If someone does attempt it, make them bigger so more information can go on them. Also, a small square is all that is needed for HP as most GMs can keep track on the maps or the backs of the cards.
<br />
</blockquote><p>I actually just put together a pdf. You can find it at the bottom of this page: <a href="http://pfogc.com/links" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">PFOGC Links</a>Charles Scholz wrote:Has anyone made a Paizo version of the TGM Cards? I use them all the time, but they were made for 3.0 and don't fit well with PFRPG.
I tried to make some, but my skills are lacking. If someone does attempt it, make them bigger so more information can go on them. Also, a small square is all that is needed for HP as most GMs can keep track on the maps or the backs of the cards.
I actually just put together a pdf. You can find it at the bottom of this page: PFOGC Linkscrmanriq2009-05-29T19:24:12ZRe: Pathfinder Society GM Discussion: How do you run combat?crmanriqhttp://paizo.com/threads/rzs2jmja?How-do-you-run-combat#62009-05-28T17:50:57Z2009-05-28T17:50:57Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">Chris Mortika wrote:</div><blockquote><p> Pathfinder Society scenarios are not supposed to be cakewalks. Characters, particularly careless ones, can die.</p>
<p>At my tables, NPC strategy depends on (a) their mental stats, Intelligence in particular, and (b) their intent and purpose, as the NPCs understand it.</p>
<p>If the NPC wasn't expecting a fight with the party, then I play their reaction as impetuous. Likely as not, they'll try to flee rather than engage an unknown and violent opponent. Likewise, two NPCS who just happen to find themselves in the same area, both fighting the party, have no reason to coordinate their attacks.</p>
<p>If a team of NPCs has anticipated the fight, I'll have them fight to their best ability. In the case you cite, or in n encounter with halfling snipers firing from cover while the PCs are in melee, i'd have the archers concentrate on the spellcasters first.</p>
<p>If this kills the spellcasters, and thereafter the party, that may be "less fun" in the short run, but it encourages the players to run tighter melee tactics with their new characters.</p>
<p></blockquote><p>Wow. A little more bloodthirsty than I would expect. (Not that bloodthirsty is a bad thing, it just surprised me.) While I hate killing characters, I do understand that acting stupid can get you killed, and PFS is no exception.
<p>Of course, taking down a spellcaster probably won't actually drop them to dead, especially at lower tiers. But it will probably make the players a lot more cautions for the rest of the adventure.</p>Chris Mortika wrote:Pathfinder Society scenarios are not supposed to be cakewalks. Characters, particularly careless ones, can die.
At my tables, NPC strategy depends on (a) their mental stats, Intelligence in particular, and (b) their intent and purpose, as the NPCs understand it.
If the NPC wasn't expecting a fight with the party, then I play their reaction as impetuous. Likely as not, they'll try to flee rather than engage an unknown and violent opponent. Likewise, two NPCS who just...crmanriq2009-05-28T17:50:57ZRe: Pathfinder Society GM Discussion: How do you run combat?crmanriqhttp://paizo.com/threads/rzs2jmja?How-do-you-run-combat#52009-05-28T17:48:22Z2009-05-28T17:48:22Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">Doug Doug wrote:</div><blockquote> <div class="messageboard-quotee">crmanriq wrote:</div><blockquote><p> So I'm running Perils of the Pirate Pact tonight, and in reading through the module, there are combats where the tactics are 'half the pirates engage in melee while the other half use their bows'. </p>
<p>As a player, the smart thing is to have your artillery concentrate fire on the players who need to be taken out first, then move down the target list. Somewhat the same with melee. Have two players flank an enemy to increase their chances of hitting (or provide support for the rogue).</p>
<p>I've always disliked stupid villains, but it strikes me that this tactic could take down party members, thus decreasing the "fun level" of the event.</p>
<p>So my question is, how do other DM's run combat? Do you use sound tactics, or do you run mindless minions? Or something in between?</p>
<p></blockquote><p>#17 is a pretty cheesecake scenario, so I usually take the gloves off when I run it. [spoiler]The problem with the first act is that no player wants to sit on their behinds when they know a combat is approaching. They are going to try and interrupt the boxed text. Go ahead and let them shoot at the approaching pirates and take some out. Then when the grappling hooks are thrown and the PC's vessel is boarded, add some more pirates to bring the encounter back up to strength.
<p>I use intelligent tactics when I run humanoid opponents. I like to have the archers take the toughest-looking PCs down first, but shooting into melee is a losing proposition. Smart PCs will take cover behind railings or masts. The pirates onboard the PC's ship will always use flank to help them out. I like to have one pirate move up to a PC and ready an action to strike when he gets a flanker, then have a second pirate move up and complete the circuit. If the PC steps out from cover or out of melee, then the archers let him have it. </p>
<p>If my dice start getting hot then I back off and have the pirates waste some actions rather than go for the throat. I'll have pirates make intimidate checks or disarm the PCs rather than try to... </blockquote><p>Some very good ideas. I like the idea of letting the PC's shoot from a distance, but then adding pirates to keep the challenge up. I guess the other side of the coin might be that if the PC's fire from distance, all of the pirates could as well, with half switching to swords as the boats close.Doug Doug wrote:crmanriq wrote:So I'm running Perils of the Pirate Pact tonight, and in reading through the module, there are combats where the tactics are 'half the pirates engage in melee while the other half use their bows'.
As a player, the smart thing is to have your artillery concentrate fire on the players who need to be taken out first, then move down the target list. Somewhat the same with melee. Have two players flank an enemy to increase their chances of hitting (or provide...crmanriq2009-05-28T17:48:22ZPathfinder Society GM Discussion: How do you run combat?crmanriqhttp://paizo.com/threads/rzs2jmja?How-do-you-run-combat#12012-11-15T22:05:03Z2009-05-28T12:31:07Z<p>So I'm running Perils of the Pirate Pact tonight, and in reading through the module, there are combats where the tactics are 'half the pirates engage in melee while the other half use their bows'. </p>
<p>As a player, the smart thing is to have your artillery concentrate fire on the players who need to be taken out first, then move down the target list. Somewhat the same with melee. Have two players flank an enemy to increase their chances of hitting (or provide support for the rogue).</p>
<p>I've always disliked stupid villains, but it strikes me that this tactic could take down party members, thus decreasing the "fun level" of the event.</p>
<p>So my question is, how do other DM's run combat? Do you use sound tactics, or do you run mindless minions? Or something in between?</p>So I'm running Perils of the Pirate Pact tonight, and in reading through the module, there are combats where the tactics are 'half the pirates engage in melee while the other half use their bows'.
As a player, the smart thing is to have your artillery concentrate fire on the players who need to be taken out first, then move down the target list. Somewhat the same with melee. Have two players flank an enemy to increase their chances of hitting (or provide support for the rogue).
I've always...crmanriq2009-05-28T12:31:07ZRe: Rise of the Runelords: Burnt Offerings PC Shenanigans (Spoilers)kjkjkj2 (alias of crmanriq)http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2iuvo?Burnt-Offerings-PC-Shenanigans#132009-02-19T03:01:34Z2009-02-19T02:57:46Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">KnightErrantJR wrote:</div><blockquote><p> I'll have to start a new one of these once we shift into <i>The Skinsaw Murders</i>, but I had to post the link to my campaign log of this campaign.</p>
<p>My summaries aren't that big of a deal, but the missives written by one of my players, the player of one Nathaniel Pennywhistle, have had me rolling.</p>
<p>Keep in mind, Nathaniel is sometimes more lucid than other times:</p>
<p><a href="http://www.armoredgopher.com/node/193" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">Rise of the Runelords Campaign Journal</a> </blockquote><p>I am always lucid. Just because you are young and have no concept of memories being three times older than the time you've walked the earth (or driven in your fancy motor cars, what magic makes those thing move so quickly? I do admire their shiny colors and bright lights. Do you need to feed them? Or do you have wizards renew their magic periodically? Oh. I subscribed to the most interesting periodical a few years back. It concerned the mating habits of human males and females, and came with very complete illustrations of superb quality. Except for the bit of folded middle that always seemed to appear in the young lady's midriff) doesn't mean my thoughts aren't completely clear to me, or to any person with the proper frame of reference.
<p>Oh, in case you might be wondering if the small illustration near this reply is a picture of me, of course it isn't. Why would you want to look at an elderly gentleman (however dashing I might be, and I do cut quite a figure.) when you could look at such a lovely young lady. She reminds me some of my mother, though I should mention that the thoughts I had for her were nothing like the carnal thoughts the above-mentioned illustration invites. This internet-thing seems quite full of inviting illustrations of human females displaying their wares with amazing skill. I shall investigate this matter thoroughly and report back with my findings.</p>KnightErrantJR wrote:I'll have to start a new one of these once we shift into The Skinsaw Murders, but I had to post the link to my campaign log of this campaign.
My summaries aren't that big of a deal, but the missives written by one of my players, the player of one Nathaniel Pennywhistle, have had me rolling.
Keep in mind, Nathaniel is sometimes more lucid than other times:
Rise of the Runelords Campaign Journal
I am always lucid. Just because you are young and have no concept of...kjkjkj2 (alias of crmanriq)2009-02-19T02:57:46Z